Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1999 (9) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1999 (9) TMI 212 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Classification of spares for Hoist as capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved the classification of spares for a Hoist as capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had previously held that spares for Hoists were capital goods based on previous tribunal judgments. The Revenue, represented by Shri Y.R. Kilania, argued that Hoists were used for material handling and transporting goods, not for production or processing, thus not meeting the criteria under Rule 57Q for capital goods. The Revenue also cited a circular stating that credit on material handling equipment, including Hoists, was not admissible. They emphasized that the spares for Hoists did not have a nexus with the manufacturing process and should not be considered capital goods.

The Respondents, represented by Shri Jitendra Singh, contended that Hoists fell under material handling equipment, which had been previously considered capital goods by the tribunal in various cases. They referred to a recent decision where stationary material handling equipment, including Hoists, were deemed eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. The Respondents argued that Hoists were essential for production and processing activities, citing previous tribunal decisions supporting their stance.

The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented, relied on previous tribunal decisions and upheld the classification of spares for Hoists as capital goods under Rule 57Q. The Tribunal noted that material handling equipment, including Hoists, had been consistently considered capital goods in previous cases. Therefore, the Department's appeal was rejected, and the impugned order regarding the classification of spares for Hoists as capital goods was upheld.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates