2005 (10) TMI 314 - AT - Central Excise

Entitlement to Capital Goods Credit on Computer Hardware System Disallowed by Tribunal

The appeal addressed the entitlement to avail capital goods credit on a Computer hardware system used within a factory. The Tribunal ruled that the goods ... Cenvat/Modvat - Capital goods Issues:1. Entitlement to avail capital goods credit on Computer hardware system used within the factory.2. Admissibility of Modvat credit to capital goods based on classification under the Central Excise tariff.Analysis:1. The appeal addressed the issue of whether the respondents were entitled to avail capital goods credit in September 1998 on a Computer hardware system used within their factory for monitoring purposes. The lower appellate authority had allowed the capital goods credit based on the use of the items within the factory for the production of final products. The appellate authority relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case. However, the Revenue argued that the admissibility of capital goods credit during the relevant period was not based on use but on the classification under the Central Excise tariff. The goods in question fell under heading 84.71, which was not specified for capital goods credit under Rule 57Q during that period. The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's argument, stating that the Supreme Court's judgment relied upon was for a period before the rule was recast on a tariff classification basis. Therefore, the Computer hardware system under heading 84.71 could not claim capital goods credit for that period. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was allowed, setting aside the impugned order.2. The second issue involved the admissibility of Modvat credit to capital goods based on their classification under the Central Excise tariff. The Revenue contended that the capital goods in question fell under heading 84.71, which was not specified for capital goods credit under Rule 57Q during the relevant period. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, emphasizing that the Supreme Court's judgment cited was for a period before the rule was recast on a tariff classification basis. As heading 84.71 was not listed under Rule 57Q during the relevant period, the Computer hardware system falling under this heading could not claim capital goods credit. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal of the Revenue was allowed.