2000 (4) TMI 57 - AT - Central Excise

Modvat Credit Eligibility for Machinery Parts & Abrasives Upheld

PRATAP RAJASTHAN SPL. STEEL LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., JAIPUR

Issues involved: The eligibility of certain parts of machinery for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules as inputs in light of the ... Modvat Issues involved:1. Eligibility of parts of machinery for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules as inputs in light of the Exclusion Clause in Explanation to Rule 57A.Analysis:The first issue in these appeals revolved around the eligibility of certain parts of machinery for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. In Appeal No. E/4890/92-NB, the benefit of Modvat credit on garness board, garseal, and garpack was denied on the basis that these parts are components of an electric furnace, categorized as parts of plant and machinery, hence not qualifying for the Modvat credit as inputs due to the Exclusion Clause to Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.Moving on to Appeal No. E/144/91-CAL, the Modvat credit was denied on coated abrasives/aloxide paper belt metalite, as it was utilized for sanding plyboard to enhance smoothness, leading to its classification as an appliance falling under the Exclusion Clause of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.The counsel representing M/s. Pratap Rajasthan Spl. Steel Ltd. argued that the denial of benefits for garness board, garseal, and garpack was unfounded, citing a precedent set by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. v. C.C.E. The counsel highlighted that the said Larger Bench decision was upheld by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Patna v. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd., Jamshedpur & Ors. Consequently, the goods in question were deemed eligible for Modvat credit as inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.Regarding the coated abrasive/aloxide paper belt metalite, the appellant contended that it was an integral part of the machine used for finishing plyboard, thus not meeting the definition of an appliance, which typically refers to a specific mechanical or electrical device. After considering the arguments, the Tribunal concluded that the abrasive/aloxide paper belt metalite could not be classified as an appliance and was, therefore, entitled to Modvat credit as part of the machine.The Tribunal referred to the Larger Bench decision in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd., which elucidated the interpretation of terms like appliance, apparatus, equipment, machine, and machinery as outlined in the Exclusion Clause of Rule 57A. The Tribunal emphasized that these terms typically denote self-contained and complete units, and any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of interpreting them as full and complete assemblages. Upholding the precedent set by the Larger Bench, the Tribunal ruled in favor of granting Modvat credit for both the parts of machinery and the abrasive/aloxide paper belt metalite, aligning with the decision upheld by the High Court in the case of C.C.E., Patna & Ors. v. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of in line with the Larger Bench decision in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd.