2005 (12) TMI 16 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Affirms Modvat Credit Eligibility for Capital Goods with Future Use Potential in Manufacturing Dutiable Goods.

CCE, CHENNAI Versus UCAL MACHINE TOOLS LTD.

CCE, CHENNAI Versus UCAL MACHINE TOOLS LTD. - 2006 (74) RLT 511 (CESTAT - Che.) Issues:1. Eligibility of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q for capital goods exclusively used for manufacturing exempted goods.2. Interpretation of whether piston valves qualify as exempted goods under Rule 57R.3. Application of Tribunal's decisions in Sterlite Industries and Ispat Metallics Ltd.4. Definition of 'used' in the context of capital goods eligibility for credit.Analysis:1. The case involved the eligibility of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q for capital goods exclusively used for manufacturing goods exempted from duty. The Revenue contended that the capital goods used for manufacturing piston valves, cleared without duty payment, were exclusively used for exempted goods, thus not eligible for credit. The original authority upheld this, but the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed it, leading to the present appeal.2. The key issue was whether piston valves qualified as exempted goods under Rule 57R, impacting Modvat credit eligibility. The Tribunal examined if the valves, cleared without duty payment to the principal manufacturer, fell under the definition of 'exempted goods.' The Larger Bench decision in Sterlite Industries was cited by the Revenue, while the respondents relied on the same decision in their favor and the Ispat Metallics Ltd. case.3. The Tribunal analyzed the Sterlite Industries decision, which clarified that job-worked goods were not considered exempted goods under Rule 57C. The duty on such goods was paid by the principal manufacturer, making them ineligible for the 'exempted goods' category. This interpretation favored the respondents' case, as the duty ultimately got paid at a later stage.4. The definition of 'used' in the context of capital goods eligibility for credit was crucial. The Ispat Metallics Ltd. decision highlighted that the term 'used' did not require actual current use but included potential future use. If the capital goods could be used in the future for manufacturing dutiable goods, the credit would be valid. The Tribunal accepted the respondents' argument that the capital goods might be used for dutiable goods in the future, ensuring credit utilization.In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the impugned order, dismissing the appeal and emphasizing that the capital goods' potential future use for dutiable goods supported the respondents' eligibility for Modvat credit.