Functional nexus with manufacture can qualify equipment as capital goods; two electric motors were remanded for invoice verification.

Items essential to, and functionally connected with, the manufacturing process were treated as capital goods under Rule 57Q even though they did not directly enter the final product. On that basis, capacitors, electrical cables, measuring gauges, motor controls, fuse holders, plug tunnel diverters, cable trays and a kathorimeter were held eligible for credit. The claim relating to two electric motors was not finally resolved because their invoice value had not been verified from original records, so that limited issue was remanded for fresh verification by the jurisdictional authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether capacitor, electrical cables, measuring gauge, motor controls, fuse holder, rating RPM, plug tunnel diverter, cable trays and kathorimeter qualified as capital goods under Rule 57Q; (ii) whether the claim for credit on two electric motors required remand for verification of invoice value.

Issue (i): Whether capacitor, electrical cables, measuring gauge, motor controls, fuse holder, rating RPM, plug tunnel diverter, cable trays and kathorimeter qualified as capital goods under Rule 57Q.

Analysis: The items, though not directly used in the manufacture of the final product, were found to have an essential role in the factory's manufacturing process. The measuring gauge was used to measure vacuum in the reactor, the capacitor formed part of the power supply system controlling manufacture, motor controls regulated power intake, cables carried electricity to machines, the fuse holder protected the control panel, the plug tunnel diverter supported pneumatic conveying, cable trays supported electric cables, and the kathorimeter was used with processing machines. Applying the principle recognised in the Jawahar Mills ratio, items essential to the manufacturing process and having a functional nexus with production are eligible as capital goods.

Conclusion: The items other than the two electric motors were held eligible for credit as capital goods, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim for credit on two electric motors required remand for verification of invoice value.

Analysis: Credit on the two motors had been denied because their value was said not to be shown separately in the invoices. The appellant produced copies of invoices indicating some value, but the originals were not produced before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the proper course was to have the jurisdictional authority verify the point on the basis of the original records.

Conclusion: The question relating to the two electric motors was remanded to the jurisdictional authority for fresh consideration.

Final Conclusion: Credit was substantially granted on the disputed items, while the limited question relating to the two electric motors was sent back for verification.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods that are essential to, and have a functional nexus with, the manufacturing process qualify as capital goods even if they do not directly participate in the production of the final product.

---