2000 (3) TMI 463 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Disallowance of Capital Goods Credit under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules.

In this case, the appellant, M/s Visvesvaraya Iron & Steel Ltd, appealed against the disallowance of Capital Goods Credit by the Commissioner, Central Excise, under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. The main contention was that the credit was disallowed due to the appellant's failure to file a declaration with the exact name of the capital goods and the correct description. The appellant argued that they had indeed filed the declaration, mentioning C.I. castings and Steel castings as capital goods, even though the specific names were not provided as these could be used on any machinery. The Commissioner acknowledged in the impugned order that the appellant had declared the final products and types of castings. The Tribunal held that the appellants were eligible for the Capital Goods Credit for the castings mentioned in the declaration, despite the specific names not being provided, as the castings were adequately identified in the filed declaration.

Regarding the disallowance of credit for parts of a crane and 'Copper Monkeys & Other items,' the Commissioner had denied the credit based on discrepancies in the declaration. The appellant had mentioned 'do' at a specific serial number in the declaration, which led to the denial of credit for 'Copper Monkeys & Other items.' The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner's finding, stating that the appellant might have corrected the declaration but it was not on record, remained uncontested by the appellant. As a result, the credit for 'Copper Monkeys & Other items' was not available to the appellant due to the absence of a filed declaration. However, for parts of the crane, the credit could not be denied solely on the basis of a wrong Tariff sub-heading mentioned in the declaration.

In the case of refractories, the Commissioner disallowed the credit despite the appellant declaring the refractories falling under a specific heading in the declaration. The appellant clarified that the invoice description matched the declared product, and the Tribunal agreed that the credit should not be denied when the products were correctly declared. The argument that credit for refractories was only available from a certain date was rejected as it was not mentioned in the disallowance notice. Additionally, the credit for an Electric Motor was initially disallowed without a specific reason provided by the Commissioner. However, the appellant had filed a declaration for the motor, and the Tribunal ruled that the credit was admissible to them. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the Capital Goods Credit for all items except 'Thermomin' and 'Copper Monkeys & Other items,' concluding the appeal in favor of the appellant.