9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 944. Regarding the remaining goods , the appellant contended that even if the goods are not covered under the definition of capital goods they are eligible for credit under input category as per Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, it is observed that the adjudicating authority has rejected their contention on the ground that these two categories are not interchangeable. There is no doubt that these goods on which MODVAT credit has been availed were received in the factory premises of the Appellant. Also, there is no dispute that these goods were duty paid and used in relation to manufacture of final product. As these goods were received in the factory premises and they have been used in manufacture of dutiable final product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed on the appellant is set aside. Appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are disputed herein, as is evident from the replies to the SCNs. The declaration under Rule 57T requires description of capital goods to be given, accordingly the Appellant by filing such declarations gave details of all the capital goods disputed herein to the department. In light of the same, the finding in the O-I-O at para 4.11 that the Appellant did not gave the name of machines/could not co-relate the disputed goods with any specified machines is completely contrary since all such details have already been given by the Appellant by filing the declarations. The appellant submits that there is no bar in getting the claim for MODVAT credit regularised under Rule 57A of the CER, 1944 as 'inputs' if the appellant fails to establis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... qualify to be inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 5. MODVAT credit amounting to Rs.52,389/- was denied on the ground that the credit was taken on the basis of invoices which do not contain description of goods/part no. of goods. In this regard, the appellant submits that when receipt of these goods in the factory of the Appellant, and its use in the manufacturing process is not disputed, denial of MODVAT credit merely due to deficiency in invoice is not sustainable. Apart from non-mentioning of description or part nos. of goods there is no allegation that other mandatory particulars have been incorrectly mentioned or not mentioned at all. It is settled position of law that substantive right should not be denied merely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules, 1944. However, we observe that the adjudicating authority has rejected their contention on the ground that these two categories are not interchangeable. We find that there is no doubt that these goods on which MODVAT credit has been availed were received in the factory premises of the Appellant. Also, there is no dispute that these goods were duty paid and used in relation to manufacture of final product. As these goods were received in the factory premises and they have been used in manufacture of dutiable final products, we hold that they qualify as 'inputs' used in the manufacture of dutiable goods and hence qualify as 'inputs' as defined under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Accordingly, we hold that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
