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 HR/MS/GC sheets, plates, angles, channels and supporting structures used in fabrication, repair and supporting works could be treated as capital goods or as components, parts or accessories of capital goods so as to qualify for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Analysis: The claim for credit depended on whether the disputed items themselves answered the description of capital goods under Rule 57Q or were components, spares or accessories of machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances used for producing or processing goods. The Court distinguished the authorities relied upon by the appellant, including the decisions applying the user test to items used in fabrication of a chimney forming an integral part of a diesel generating set. It held that those authorities turned on facts where the goods were essential to the functioning of capital goods, whereas the present items were not shown to be used for producing or processing goods, nor to bring about any change in any substance for manufacture of final products. The items were found to be in the nature of raw material or construction material and not components, spares or accessories of capital goods.
Conclusion: The disputed items were not capital goods or eligible accessories within Rule 57Q, and Modvat credit was rightly denied.