1998 (8) TMI 252 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Denial of Modvat credit on capital goods described as "generator set, spare parts".

Analysis:
1. Issue of Modvat credit denial: The Assistant Commissioner denied Modvat credit on the grounds that the Modvat credit is available on a "generating set" but not on a "generator and its parts". The ld. Assistant Commissioner observed that the appellants sought to avail Modvat credit on a generator and its spare parts, which are not specifically mentioned as capital goods for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q.

2. Contentions of the Appellant: The appellant's advocate argued that the declaration filed clearly describes the goods as a "generator set, spare parts", asserting that a generator set and generating set are essentially the same. He contended that a generating set is explicitly included in the explanation under Rule 57Q, and even though spare parts are not specifically mentioned, they are covered under a different clause.

3. Arguments of the Respondent: The respondent's representative argued that a generator and generating set are distinct items for classification purposes, with a generator falling under Chapter Heading 85.01 and a generating set under Chapter Heading 85.02. He emphasized that the spare parts mentioned in the explanation cover only spare parts of machines described in a specific clause, not spare parts of a generator or generating set.

4. Tribunal's Decision: After considering both sides' arguments and examining the declaration, the Tribunal found that while a generator and generating set are distinct for classification, a generator set and generating set are similar or identical. As generating set qualifies for Modvat credit as capital goods under the explanation, the Tribunal held that Modvat credit would be admissible on the item described as a generator set. However, the Tribunal agreed that spare parts are not covered under the relevant clause and ruled that no Modvat credit would be allowed on spare parts of a generator set during the material period.

This detailed analysis highlights the key contentions, arguments, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the denial of Modvat credit on the capital goods in question.