Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding

🚨 Important Update for Our Users

We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.

⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59

After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.

If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know via our feedback form , with specific details, so we can address them promptly.

  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2003 (12) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password



 

2003 (12) TMI 374 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
Appeal against adjudication order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise regarding Modvat credit on capital goods under Rule 57R(3) of Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi was filed by the Revenue challenging the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The respondents, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, were availing the benefit of Modvat credit on inputs and capital goods. A show cause notice was issued to them for allegedly not complying with the provisions of Rule 57R(3) of the Central Excise Rules concerning Modvat credit on capital goods. However, the adjudicating authority decided to drop the proceedings.

The appellants argued that they had not complied with the condition of Rule 57R(3) as they failed to provide evidence that the Excise duty on the capital goods was paid by them since the goods were received under a lease agreement. On the other hand, the respondents contended that they had furnished a certificate from the capital goods manufacturer confirming that they had paid the Excise duty. Additionally, they presented a certificate from the finance company indicating that the lease amount did not include the Excise duty, which was separately paid by the respondents. This evidence was submitted before the adjudicating authority.

The Tribunal observed that the Excise duty on the capital goods was indeed paid by the respondents and was not part of the lease agreement. Consequently, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal. The judgment underscores the importance of complying with the statutory provisions regarding Modvat credit on capital goods and the significance of providing adequate evidence to substantiate the payment of Excise duty.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates