2006 (6) TMI 7 - AT - Central Excise

Central Excise - Cenvat/Modvat on capital goods - Essential parts and accessories of specified goods and goods related to manufacture of final product are entitled for credit

Summary

Issues:
Denial of Modvat credit on split air-conditioners, fluidic finish kit, lamps, and saipper pads as capital goods.

Analysis:
The appellants were denied Modvat credit on various items, including split air-conditioners, based on the argument that these items cannot be considered as part cum-components and accessories of capital goods. The learned Advocate for the appellants contended that the air-conditioner was essential for the functioning of the furnace control room attached to the furnace itself. Without the air-conditioner, the control room would overheat due to the high furnace temperatures, making it impossible to measure temperature or control the functions of the furnace. The advocate argued that the air-conditioner was a crucial component and accessory of the furnace, and therefore, Modvat credit should not be denied. The Commissioner (Appeals) had previously denied the credit, stating that air-conditioners fall under a specific heading and are not used for controlling surrounding temperature to manufacture final products. However, the advocate argued that the air-conditioners were necessary to bring the temperature within a manageable range for operation. The advocate cited previous CEGAT orders to support this argument.

Regarding the fluidic finish kit, the Commissioner (Appeals) denied Modvat credit, claiming it was not part of the plant and its specific use was not indicated. However, the advocate explained that the kit was imported along with the plant and was essential for inspecting bottles for leaks. Similarly, lamps were said to be crucial for indicating different machine functions, without which the machine's operations would be hindered. The saipper pads were also deemed essential to prevent bottles from falling further during manufacturing processes. The advocate argued that all these items were necessary for the manufacturing process and, therefore, the Modvat credit should be allowed.

The learned SDR argued against the necessity of the air-conditioner for the furnace control, stating that the factory had been operational before the installation of the air-conditioner. Reference was made to a previous case where Modvat credit on split air-conditioners was denied. The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that Modvat credit on the air conditioner had already been denied in a previous case involving the appellants. Therefore, the credit could not be extended, and the Commissioner (Appeals) decision on this matter was upheld. However, regarding the other items such as lamps, fluidic finish kit, and saipper pads, the Tribunal held that since they were used in relation to the manufacture of final products, the Modvat credit would be admissible. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.