TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal Upholds Modvat Credit on Capital Goods under Rule 57Q</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PONDY Versus CHEMFAB ALKALIS LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PONDY Versus CHEMFAB ALKALIS LTD. - 2008 (227) E.L.T. 599 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues:Grant of Modvat credit on capital goods under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.Analysis:1. Modvat Credit for Specific Amounts:The appeals by the Revenue challenged the grant of Modvat credit on capital goods to the respondents under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The original authority had granted partial relief in some cases and confirmed demands in others. Notably, the appellant contested the allowance of specific amounts as Modvat credit to the respondents. The dispute focused on whether the Modvat credits of Rs. 9,27,776/-, Rs. 15,102/-, and Rs. 65,838/- were rightfully permitted. The appellant argued against the credit of Rs. 9,27,776/- due to an alleged failure to file the required declaration under Rule 57T. However, the respondent contended that a declaration under Rule 57G had been submitted, emphasizing that the denial of Modvat credit solely based on the declaration provision was unwarranted. The judgment rejected the Revenue's plea, citing established case law that unless the substantive requirements for capital goods credit were unmet, denial based on declaration technicalities was unjustified. Consequently, the Modvat credit of Rs. 9,27,776/- was upheld for the respondents.2. Classification of Capital Goods:Regarding the remaining disputed credits, the appellant argued that these credits were allowed without considering whether the relevant Tariff entries fell within the purview of the Explanation to Rule 57Q(1). The capital goods in question were classified under specific Tariff headings, and the appellant contended that these goods fell within the excluded category under the Explanation. However, the respondent disputed this classification, asserting that the goods did not fall within the excluded category specified in the Explanation. The judgment analyzed the relevant Tariff entries and the provisions of the Explanation closely. It was concluded that the disputed capital goods fell under Chapter 84, making them eligible for capital goods credit under Rule 57Q(1) as per the applicable amendment. The judgment clarified that none of the Tariff entries in question fell within the excluded category, affirming the eligibility of the capital goods for Modvat credit.3. Final Decision and Dismissal of Appeals:In conclusion, the orders of the lower appellate authority granting Modvat credit and overturning penalties were upheld. The judgment dismissed the appeals brought by the Revenue, thereby affirming the decisions that allowed the Modvat credit on the disputed capital goods. The pronouncement in open court finalized the decision, sustaining the lower authority's rulings and rejecting the Revenue's grievances.This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the judgment, addressing the issues related to the grant of Modvat credit on capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as adjudicated by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI.
TaxTMI 