1996 (3) TMI 271 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Eligibility of modvat credit for various items

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, the issue at hand is the eligibility of modvat credit for various items. The appellant's case revolves around this issue, and four appeals are being collectively addressed in this order.

The first item in question is the "paint accumulator," where credit was disallowed on the basis that it is used as an anti-pollution chemical and not directly related to the manufacture of the final product. The appellant contends that the paint accumulator is mixed with paint before the final product, a vehicle, is painted, improving paint quality by reducing pollution. Both parties agreed that further information on the precise use of this product is needed to determine its eligibility for credit. The Tribunal set aside the initial finding and directed a fresh adjudication after evidence of the product's use is presented within two months.

Next, the issue of the "welding specimen" arises, where the item was not declared in the modvat declaration. The appellant argued for condonation due to its use as an input, but as per requirements, the item must be declared for availing credit. Since it was not declared with no satisfactory explanation, the Tribunal declined to interfere.

Regarding the "non-fluorescent tape," the appellant argued that it enhances the marketability of the product as a label, making it part of the finished product and an input. The Tribunal agreed with this reasoning, setting aside the initial order and allowing the claim for credit.

The "spot welding electrodes" issue involved the use of electrodes for spot welding, a process where electricity is converted into heat for welding. As the material in these electrodes is not transferred to the finished goods, the Tribunal denied the credit, emphasizing that the slower consumption rate and rotation of electrodes do not warrant credit.

The appellant did not pursue the appeal for "cotton padding and jute stripe." Additionally, credit was denied for "notional higher credit taken against five gate passes" due to the lack of evidence regarding the manufacturer's status. The Tribunal allowed for the submission of a certificate within three months to reconsider the credit.

Credit taken on a "photo copy of gate pass" without attestation was also disallowed by the Tribunal to prevent abuse of the system. The appellant's request to keep the matter pending due to a writ petition was not granted, and the Tribunal proceeded to decide the issue. Finally, citing a judgment by the Patna High Court, the Tribunal declined credit for tool kits supplied with vehicles, as they were not considered inputs. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.