TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MBAI] , we hold that Modvat credit is admissible on the structural items which are so used as to make the machinery vibration free. We observe that over the years Rule 57Q and the explanation thereto has been interpreted liberally to take even the structurals in the ambit of capital goods provided that such structurals are closely associated with the machinery installed in a plant. We are therefore of the opinion that the impugned goods are eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q as it existed. The appeal is allowed. The order of the Commissioner is set aside. - HON'BLE ARCHANA WADHWA (J) AND MOHEB ALI M. (T), MEMBERS For the Appellant : R. Nambi Rajan, Adv. For the Respondent : R.B. Pardeshi, JDR Order Moheb Ali M., Member (T) 1. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for credit. The same material when used for construction of concrete silos, pre-heater tower structure, etc. which are essential for the manufacture of final goods, are eligible for credit. The Tribunal relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Jawahar Mills [2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] wherein the Supreme Court interpreted the expression 'plant' and ruled that such material used in the plant are eligible for credit. A similar opinion was held in the case of Adarsh Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-VII. The Ld. Advocate also relied upon the Tribunal's decision in Mukand Ltd. v. C.C.E., [2005 (182) E.L.T. 61 (Tri.)] where again it was held that structures which are supportive of conveyor system, become pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... achines, machinery etc. nor parts or components thereof of capital goods. He argued that materials used in civil construction are not eligible for capital goods credit. 6. L.G. Hotline CPT Ltd. v. Commissioner [2004 (176) E.L.T. 443 (Tri. - Del.)] In this case the Tribunal relied upon Jawahar Mills [2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]. The Tribunal interpreted the decision of the Supreme Court in Jawahar Mills and held. These items which are used in the foundation of machineries and equipment are not capital goods. 7. The Tribunal in the case of Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd. [2004 (174) E.L.T. 375 (Tri. - Bang.)] held that chequered plates/hard plates are general purpose items having multifarious use. No evidence as to how the goods are used as com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.)] held that steel sheets used in the manufacture of molasses tank are inputs in the manufacture of tanks and not its parts and therefore credit is not admissible. 13. We have considered the plethora of decisions on the subject. There is a virtual jungle out there. It is a difficult path to tread. However one common strain in all the judgments is that construction material, so long as it has nothing to do with the machinery installed in the plant, is not entitled for capital goods credit. For instance if cement is used in the construction of a wall of a building in which the machinery is housed it is not covered under Rule 57Q but if the same cement is used in the construction of a foundation for a boiler it is covered. Thus in each case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
