Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Modvat credit on nuts, bolts and screws used as spares could be denied merely because the declaration under Rule 57T did not specify the machinery in which such items would ultimately be used, when the assessee maintained records showing actual use in capital goods covered by Rule 57Q.
Analysis: The denial of credit was founded only on the absence of a specific declaration naming the machinery at the time of receipt of general-purpose spares. The record showed that such items were used for replacement of worn-out parts of capital goods, and the practical difficulty of identifying the exact machinery at the time of receipt was accepted. The purpose of the declaration requirement was held to be ensure proper use of capital goods, and that purpose could be satisfied by maintaining stock and issue records and intimating the Revenue. The adjudicating authority was therefore required to examine the actual-use records and verify whether the items were used in machinery described as capital goods under Rule 57Q.
Conclusion: Denial of Modvat credit solely for want of a machinery-specific declaration under Rule 57T was not justified; the matter was remanded for verification of the assessee's records and fresh consideration of eligibility.