2000 (10) TMI 393 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Proper declaration under Rule 57T for credit on goods
- Eligibility for Modvat credit on specific items
- Interpretation of declaration requirements under Rule 57T

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by Revenue against the Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing credit on goods without proper declaration under Rule 57T. The Commissioner held that the non-filing of a declaration was not sufficient to deny credit, emphasizing that a manufacturer must file a declaration as a mandatory condition to take credit. The respondents had filed a consolidated declaration, but it did not specifically include the impugned goods, which was deemed insufficient based on a previous Tribunal case.

2. The Revenue argued that granting Modvat credit on certain items before the amendment of Rule 57Q in 1995 was impermissible. They cited precedents to support their position and sought to set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, restoring the Assistant Commissioner's decision.

3. The Tribunal heard arguments from both sides. The Revenue reiterated their stance, except for a case that had been resolved by a Larger Bench. They contended that the appeal should be granted in their favor. On the other hand, the respondents' consultant emphasized that a declaration had indeed been filed, covering the subject goods, and challenged the allegation of non-compliance.

4. Regarding the eligibility of goods included under Rule 57Q post-amendment in 1995, the respondents relied on a Larger Bench decision in their favor. They argued that they were entitled to credit on these items based on the precedent cited.

5. The Tribunal examined the Larger Bench decision, which classified certain items as capital goods. It was determined that the subject goods played a vital role in connecting electricity to machines, making them essential accessories of capital goods. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to grant Modvat credit on these items.

6. Upon reviewing the declaration filed by the respondents under Rule 57T, it was noted that while certain details were lacking, the declaration covered the subject goods. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the benefit of Modvat credit should be denied due to incomplete specifics in the declaration. Given the nature of the goods and the manufacturer's familiarity with them, the Tribunal found no reason to withhold the credit on capital goods.

7. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, confirming the eligibility of the respondents for Modvat credit on the capital goods in question.