2007 (12) TMI 111 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant granted credit for pollution control items used in machinery fabrication

UG SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MEERUT-II

UG SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MEERUT-II - 2008 (225) E.L.T. 69 (Tri - Del.) Issues: Denial of credit for items used in fabrication of machinery; Classification of items under Chapter 72 of the Tariff; Entitlement for credit for items used in pollution control equipment.Denial of credit for items used in fabrication of machinery:The appellant filed an appeal against the impugned order denying credit for items primarily used in the fabrication of machinery. The lower authority classified the items under Chapter 72 of the Tariff and excluded them from the purview of capital goods. The appellant contended that they are engaged in manufacturing industrial spirit and were obligated by the Central Government to install pollution control equipment. They argued that the items in question, used for the manufacture and installation of a bio-gas plant for pollution control, should be eligible for credit as capital goods. The appellant cited the definition of capital goods during the relevant period, which included pollution control equipment and its components, parts, and accessories. The Tribunal found that the goods were indeed used in the factory for pollution control equipment, essential for setting up the factory for manufacturing industrial spirit. Therefore, the lower authority's finding that the items were only for fabrication of machinery and not related to the final product was deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to credit for the items used in pollution control equipment, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal.Classification of items under Chapter 72 of the Tariff:The Revenue contended that the goods in question were general use items classified under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff, which were not specified under capital goods. However, the Tribunal noted that there was no dispute regarding the use of the goods, as they were used for manufacturing and installing pollution control equipment necessary for the factory's operations. The definition of capital goods encompassed pollution control equipment and its components, spares, and accessories. Given these circumstances, the Tribunal found that the lower authority's conclusion that the goods were solely for machinery fabrication and unrelated to the final product was not tenable. As a result, the appellant was deemed entitled to credit for the items used in pollution control equipment.Entitlement for credit for items used in pollution control equipment:The appellant's argument that the items in question, denied credit, were utilized in the manufacture and installation of pollution control equipment for pollution control purposes was upheld by the Tribunal. The appellant's compliance with the Central Government's directive to install pollution control equipment in specified factories, including theirs, further supported their claim for credit. The Tribunal emphasized that since pollution control equipment was installed in the factory, the items in question should be considered eligible for credit as capital goods. Therefore, the appellant's entitlement to credit for the items used in the manufacture and installation of pollution control equipment was affirmed, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal.