2011 (8) TMI 399 - HC - Central Excise

Modvat credit - Capital goods - Rule 57Q - Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2010 -TMI - 76691 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.). In paragraphs 12 and 13, while applying the user test and following the Jawahar Mills s case, the Apex court has held that even though steel plates and M.S.Channels used in the fabrication of chimney would fall within the ambit of capital goods . - Held that the Court should apply liberal test to find out as to whether a particular item would fall under the definition of capital goods or not - Decided in favor of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Loader, Crane with accessories, Cement, Bulldozer fall under the definition of Capital Goods under Section 57Q for Modvat credit?
2. Whether Rebar Coils, CTD Bars, and TOR Steel are capital goods under Rule 57Q?

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the classification of certain items as capital goods under Section 57Q for Modvat credit. The Tribunal upheld the entitlement of the assessee for Modvat credit on the Crane and Loader, considering them as machinery or equipment used for production. The Apex Court's decision in Jawahar Mills Limited's case was cited to support this classification. However, the matter regarding the Bulldozer was remanded for further consideration. As for the Rebar Coils, CTD Bars, TOR Steel, and Cement, the Tribunal, in line with the liberal interpretation of Rule 57Q from the Jawahar Mills case, deemed these items essential for establishing a manufacturing unit for cement, not merely for civil construction work.

2. The second issue pertains to the interpretation of Rule 57Q and whether the items like Rebar Coils, CTD Bars, and TOR Steel qualify as capital goods. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the Apex Court's ruling in Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., emphasizing the "user test" and liberal construction of the term "capital goods." The Tribunal's factual findings supported the view that the mentioned items were crucial for setting up a manufacturing unit for cement, warranting their classification as capital goods under Rule 57Q.

3. The judgment highlights the importance of applying a liberal approach in interpreting Rule 57Q to determine the eligibility of items as capital goods. The Court endorsed the Tribunal's factual findings regarding the essential nature of the items in question for establishing a manufacturing unit, aligning with the principles laid down in previous legal precedents. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed, and the question of law raised was decided against the Revenue, emphasizing the need for a broad interpretation of the term "capital goods" in such cases.