2010 (1) TMI 482 - HC - Central Excise

Cenvat - Capital goods - The respondents are the manufacturers of Tractors. Name of contractor and respondent as consignee mentioned in invoice. Duty paid on parts and one of the parties entitled to credit. Held that - credit not taken by contractor. Credit admissible to respondent. No revenue loss as credit taken only once.

Summary

Issues:
Impugning a judgment of the Custom, Excise & Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding entitlement to modvat credit for inputs used in manufacturing tractors.

Analysis:
The High Court judgment addressed the appeals CEA No. 22 of 2004 and CEA No. 92 of 2006, highlighting common questions of law and fact. The Revenue challenged the Tribunal's decision granting modvat credit to the respondents for inputs used in manufacturing tractors. The respondents, as tractor manufacturers, had ordered a Chasis Painting Plant from a specific supplier. The parts of the plant were received in their factory and were duly mentioned in the inputs, with duty paid. The Court noted that since duty had been paid on the inputs and parts, the respondents were indeed entitled to modvat credit. Importantly, the supplier had not claimed any modvat credit, ensuring that the respondents were the rightful recipients of the credit. This situation indicated that there was no loss suffered by the appellant, as the modvat credit was rightfully claimed only once by the respondents, not duplicated by the supplier. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them accordingly.