1997 (2) TMI 301 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-grant of Modvat credit for various capital goods (Items 1 to 13).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-grant of Modvat credit for Items 1 to 8:
The appellants argued that Items 1 to 8 (Wires & Cables, Electrical Goods, Spare parts for Electrical Goods, Control Cable, Press Switch, Cable Glands, Micro Switch, Module-Electrical Goods, Chain Pulley Block, Control Panels) should be granted Modvat credit as capital goods. They relied on several judgments (e.g., C.C.E., Meerut v. Nova Udyog, Kanoria Chemicals v. C.C.E., Ashoka Synthetics v. C.C.E., etc.) to support their claim.

The Assistant Collector had previously held that these items are electrical installations forming part of the basic electrical infrastructure and do not qualify as capital goods under Rule 57Q, as they do not produce or process any change necessary for the manufactured chemicals.

The appellants contended that:
- Wires and Cables are integral to the plant's operation and fall under Heading 85.44.
- Spare parts are essential for machinery used in manufacturing finished products.
- Electrical Goods, Switch Board, Panel Board, and Control Panels are crucial for the operation of their continuous process chemical plant.
- Chain Pulley Block is used for charging raw materials, thus directly involved in manufacturing.
- Modules and Switch Parts are integral to plant operations and electrical installations.

The Tribunal considered these submissions and the definitions of "capital goods" under Rule 57Q. It was noted that the disputed items are essential for the plant's operation and thus qualify as capital goods. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's explanation in C.C.E. v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works, which clarified that processes integral to manufacturing qualify as part of the manufacturing process.

The Tribunal concluded that these items are part of the machinery and equipment necessary for manufacturing and thus qualify as capital goods. The Tribunal also referenced previous judgments (e.g., J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. C.C., Gujarat Alkalies & Chemical Ltd. v. C.C., etc.) that supported the inclusion of such items as capital goods.

2. Non-grant of Modvat credit for Items 9 to 13:
The appellants initially relied on a circular (M.F. (D.R.) Circular No. 276/110/96-TRU) but later conceded that Items 9 to 13 (Lab Hemogenizers, Lab Equipment, EPBAX, Cement, Bitumen) do not qualify as capital goods and agreed to the disallowance of Modvat credit for these items.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal accepted the appellants' claim for Modvat credit for Items 1 to 8, treating them as capital goods, while the claim for Items 9 to 13 was rejected as not pressed. The decision was based on the integral role of these items in the manufacturing process and supported by previous judicial precedents.