9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2000 (3) TMI 558 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
- Denial of Modvat credit on certain capital goods - Eligibility of capital goods for Modvat credit - Interpretation of the term "Plant" under Rule 57Q - Applicability of previous Tribunal decisions on similar issues Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged an order granting relief against a demand for non-availability of Modvat credit on specific capital goods. The Assistant Commissioner's original order was confirmed, except for the denial of credit on batteries. 2. The Revenue contended that Modvat credit was not eligible before a specific date and that certain capital goods were not directly connected to final product manufacturing based on previous rulings, thus credit should be denied. 3. The respondents did not contest the denial of credit on batteries. However, they argued that other items were essential for power conveyance to machines producing final goods, falling under the term "Plant" as per Rule 57Q and previous Tribunal decisions. 4. The Tribunal considered the nature of the items in question and their durability, concluding that items like cables, control panels, and material handling equipment were essential for production and not consumables. Previous Tribunal decisions were cited to support the eligibility of these items for Modvat credit. 5. The Tribunal upheld the order granting Modvat credit on items related to power conveyance and material handling equipment, as they were deemed essential for production and fell under the definition of "Plant" under Rule 57Q. 6. The decision regarding Modvat credit on weighing machines and parts was supported by a previous Tribunal ruling, and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order granting credit on these items. 7. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing the previous decisions and the essential nature of the items in question for production within the factory premises. The order granting Modvat credit on the disputed capital goods was upheld based on the analysis and findings presented.
|
