TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner in the Order-in-Original has found that design and drawing if done manually requires about 12 weeks of lead time and in order to speed up the process of manufacturing activity, the designing work is carried out using these computers with an application of software called Computer Aided Design (CAD). By using this software lead time for design of transformer can be reduced from 12 weeks to about 6 weeks and this would facilitate speedy production process. Therefore computers in this case are used for designing of the transformers, which is the first process in the manufacture of transformers, should be considered as an equipment used for producing goods. 3. The Assistant Commissioner has found that the computers is not included in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacture of final excisable goods. In the instant case, the equipments (Computers) are not used for producing or processing any of the excisable goods, they are also not used for bringing about any change in any material substances/raw materials for the manufacture of the final products. Hence the computers used for the purpose of designing and drawing does not qualify themselves to be treated as capital goods within the meaning of the explanation at (a) of Rule 57Q(1). Further, they also does not qualify themselves to be categorized into any other types of goods which are recognized as capital goods statutorily under Rule 57Q(1). Hence I hold that the said computers cannot be considered as capital goods and hence the credit availed has to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fully endorse the decisions of the AC that the computers in this case are not eligible for Modvat credit under 57Q at all during the relevant time. Hence, the order of the AC is correct, proper and legal in all respects and does not require any interference. 5. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants while differentiating the decision of this Bench in the appellant s own case, vide Final Order No. 1608/2001, dated 23-10-2001, denying the benefit on Computers for the eligibility of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q, submitted that there is no conflict with the finding of the use of the Computers as recorded in Para 2 of the Tribunal. He submits the use for designing has been upheld as use in manufacture by the Supreme Court in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant s own case as per Final Order No 1608/2001, dated 23-10-2001 [2002 (149) E.L.T. 768 (T)] wherein Computers have been denied the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q, I am not inclined to accept that the Computers in this case are eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. The Computers which would bring about any change in production i.e. in CAM use would be eligible for benefit under Rule 57Q and not computers used for CAD applications i.e. designing. There is no conflict that designing is not part of manufacture of finished products as rightly pointed out by the DR. However, the eligibility under Rule 57Q is not extending to all the items used in or in relation to manufacture, but it is restricted. The definition cannot be enlarg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
