Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1996 (10) TMI 498

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... transformers to the tune of ₹ 46,747 on 28-7-1994. The lower authorities have denied the benefit of Rule 57Q on the ground that the transformers are not meant for the purpose of producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance in the manufacture of final products. The purpose of transformer obviously is to step down the voltage of electricity received by the Appellants in their plant. 1.2 Hence this Appeal before this Tribunal. 2. Short question involved in this Appeal, therefore, is whether the Modvat credit would be permissible on transformers under Rule 57Q as it existed before 16-3-1995. It is admitted to both sides that clause (d) of Explanation I to Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erials cannot be manufactured. He also draws attention to the fact that clause (a), inter alia includes the entire plant and clause (b) includes the component of that plant. Component of the plant, according to him, would mean even separate machinery or equipment. He, therefore, submits that the definition of capital goods as it stood before 16-3-1993, is very widely worded and would include all machineries used in a plant, which in turn is used for manufacture of any final products. Viewed in that light, he submits the Modvat credit has been wrongly denied by the lower authorities. He urges for allowing the Appeal. 4. Opposing the contention of the learned Consultant, Shri S.N. Ghosh, learned JDR submits that apart from the argument as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mits that if somebody obtains a transformer of capacity upto 75 KVA, then on the arguments of learned Consultant he would be covered by the clause (b) of the Explanation. There would thus be no need specifically to include transformers of capacity exceeding 75 KVA. In other words, the learned JDR submits that entry (vi) of clause (d) introduced w.e.f. 16-3-1995 would become a nullity. He, therefore, prays for dismissing the appeal. 5. I have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. I find that the plea now taken by the learned Consultant was also taken by another Appellant in the case Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar v. M/s. Kalinga Cement Ltd. and M/s. Shiva Cement Ltd. dealt with by the Tribunal in Order No. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... applies to machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances and not to component, spare parts, accessories of the aforesaid articles i.e. machines, machinery, plant, equipment etc. Learned Consultant, therefore, submits that there is no substance in the Department s Appeals and consequently in the Stay Petitions: the Appeals, therefore, may be decided by upholding the impugned order. * * * 5. I am inclined to agree with the submissions of the learned Consultant for the Respondents that a plant is also entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit under rule 57Q. It is admitted that the cement plant of the Respondents that a plant is also entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit under rule 57Q. It is admitted that the c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e in the case of conveyor belts in the matter of Kalinga Cement Ltd. (supra). 7. I also do not agree with the submission of the learned JDR that Entry No. (vi) in clause (d) would become a nullity. From the reading of clause (d), it appears that the Central Govt. appear to have, as a matter of policy, included certain specific goods on which Modvat credit under Rule 57Q would be admissible. However, I feel, the said goods are also covered by the general definition of clauses (a), (b) and (c) and it is only by way of abundant caution that clause (d) has been introduced to set at rest any controversies and doubts. I am, therefore, further of the view that clause (d) is only of a clarificatory nature and it should be given a retrospective e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates