1999 (7) TMI 370 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against disallowance of Modvat credit on capital goods under Central Excise Rules.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of Modvat Credit
The appellant, a manufacturer of Needle Roller Bearings, availed Modvat credit under Rule 57Q on capital goods. The dispute arose when the Additional Commissioner disallowed the credit on certain items mentioned in the show cause notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance, leading to the current appeal.

Issue 2: Contention of the Appellant
The appellant argued that the profile projector and lathe machine are essential for quality control and manufacturing processes. The profile projector is crucial for checking end radius profiles, ensuring accurate needle rollers. The lathe machine is used for cutting excessive portions of shells, a vital step in bearing manufacturing. The appellant also defended the credit taken on imported capital goods, citing clerical errors that did not impact government revenue.

Issue 3: Legal Precedents
Citing legal precedents, the appellant highlighted cases where measuring instruments and quality control equipment were deemed eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. The appellant's arguments were supported by judgments emphasizing the importance of such equipment in manufacturing processes.

Issue 4: Analysis of Evidence
Upon reviewing the appellant's submissions, it was found that both the profile projector and lathe machine met the requirements of Rule 57Q. The profile projector fell under Chapter Heading 9031.00, recognized as capital goods for manufacturing. The appellant's detailed explanations on the role of these tools in needle roller bearing production were deemed satisfactory. The disputed credit amount was justified by the appellant, with evidence of clerical errors and no adverse impact on government revenue.

Conclusion:
The judgment allowed the appeal, recognizing the significance of the profile projector and lathe machine in the manufacturing process. The appellant's contentions were upheld, and the impugned order was modified in favor of the appellant. The decision was based on the appellant's detailed explanations, legal precedents, and the lack of substantial rebuttals from the department.