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>Tribunal allows Modvat credit appeal for Pneumatic Conveying System.</h1> <h3>BIRLA CORPORATION LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR</h3> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing their appeal against the denial of Modvat credits on capital goods, specifically the Pneumatic ... Cenvat/Modvat - Modvat on capital goods - Classification - Determination - Jurisdiction Issues:- Denial of Modvat credit on Pneumatic Conveying System and parts thereof- Classification of goods under Chapter 87 of the CET Schedule- Eligibility of goods as capital goods under Rule 57Q- Validity of declaration for availing Modvat credit- Use of goods within the factory for Modvat credit eligibilityAnalysis:1. The appeals were filed against orders disallowing Modvat credits on capital goods by the Commissioner (Appeals). The denial of credits on Pneumatic Conveying System and parts thereof was the main challenge in the appeals.2. The counsel argued that the goods were eligible capital goods under Rule 57Q as they were used within the factory for handling raw material essential for cement manufacturing. The lower appellate authority wrongly classified the goods and denied Modvat credit based on incorrect grounds.3. The Department reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and raised concerns about the timing of credit taken before the installation of capital goods, as per Rule 57Q.4. The description of capital goods under Rule 57Q was crucial in determining eligibility for Modvat credit. The goods in question were declared under Heading 84.14, making them eligible as capital goods. The lower authorities erred in their classification and declaration assessment.5. The proper authority for determining the classification of goods is the one within whose jurisdiction the goods are manufactured. In this case, the goods were classified under Heading 84.14, not Chapter 87 as held by the lower appellate authority.6. The key question was whether the goods were used within the appellant's factory. The Tribunal found that the Pneumatic Conveying System was used as material-handling equipment within the factory, making it eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q.7. Citing precedents and the operation of the system, the Tribunal concluded that the Pneumatic Conveying System and its parts were eligible for Modvat credit. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
