Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 was admissible on inputs used in the manufacture of an electric arc furnace, and whether denial of credit on the ground that the furnace was immovable property and not goods could be sustained when the show cause notices proceeded on a different footing.
Analysis: The notices proceeded on the basis that the items listed in the annexures were used in the manufacture of the electric arc furnace, but credit was denied because the furnace was treated as immovable property and therefore not excisable goods. The adjudicating authority, however, recorded that some items were not used in manufacture, although that was not the case made out in the notices. The authority also recognized the furnace as capital goods under Rule 57Q and held that goods fixed to the earth could still qualify as capital goods if used for producing or processing goods. It further held that, with effect from 18-5-1995, Modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of capital goods was admissible under Rule 57D(2). On that basis, the sole ground in the notices for denial of credit failed, and no other ground was available to sustain the demand.
Conclusion: Modvat credit on the disputed items was admissible to the assessee, and the denial of credit was unsustainable.