2001 (1) TMI 453 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Modvat credit on A.C. Supply Geared Motor due to lack of declaration.
2. Denial of Modvat credit on Brass Tubes taken prior to installation in the factory.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of Modvat credit on A.C. Supply Geared Motor
The appellants challenged the denial of Modvat credit on A.C. Supply Geared Motor by the lower authorities due to the absence of a declaration. The appellant's counsel argued that a declaration had indeed been filed on 11-12-1995, classifying the motor under "other Engines and Motors." The counsel also cited Circular No. 441/7/99-CX, stating that Modvat credit should not be denied based on incomplete declaration details. Referring to the Kamakhya Steels case, the counsel requested a remand for fresh consideration by the Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal found the denial of credit unjustified, noting the sufficiency of the filed declaration. It decided to remand the issue to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh decision in line with the Circular and the Kamakhya Steels case.

Issue 2: Denial of Modvat credit on Brass Tubes
Regarding the denial of Modvat credit on Brass Tubes taken before installation, the appellants argued that the tubes were components of capital goods covered under Rule 57Q. The Revenue contended that the tubes fell under a specific provision excluding them from credit. The Tribunal observed that the tubes were installed after credit but could still be covered by the general provision allowing credit. It decided to remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for verification of the tubes' usage as components of capital goods. The Assistant Commissioner was instructed to provide a detailed decision after a fair hearing. Consequently, the lower authorities' decisions were set aside, and the appeal was allowed for remand on both issues.