Capital goods credit under Rule 57Q requires statutory definition-based scrutiny, leading to remand for fresh eligibility examination.

Credit for disputed items as capital goods under Rule 57Q required a reasoned examination of the statutory definition of capital goods, including spares, components and accessories, rather than reliance only on their use in manufacture. Because the original and appellate orders did not record a clear finding on the applicability of Rules 57A and 57Q to the goods, the matter had not been properly examined. Fresh consideration was required with opportunity to the assessee and compliance with natural justice, and the impugned order was set aside with remand for de novo scrutiny of eligibility.

---

---

Issues: Whether the grant of credit treating the disputed items as capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules could stand, and whether the matter required remand for fresh examination under Rules 57A and 57Q.

Analysis: The order in appeal did not analyse the statutory definition and explanation of capital goods, spares, components and accessories under Rule 57Q, and merely proceeded on the basis of the use of the items in manufacture. The Board's circular relied upon only clarified that eligibility had to be tested against the definition in Rule 57Q. As the original and appellate orders did not record a clear finding on the applicability of Rules 57A and 57Q to the goods in question, the issue was not examined with adequate reasoning. Fresh consideration was therefore necessary, with opportunity to the assessee and observance of natural justice.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration of eligibility under Rules 57A and 57Q.

---