Just a moment...
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 Modvat credit was admissible on UV lamps and fluorescent tubes under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether penalty was imposable for wrong availment of such credit.
Analysis: The goods in question were held not to be parts of any specific machine. They were classifiable under Heading 85.39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which was not covered by the table below Rule 57Q. On that basis, they did not qualify as capital goods for the purpose of Modvat credit. Since the credit had been wrongly availed, the imposition of penalty was also upheld.
Conclusion: Modvat credit was not admissible on the disputed goods and penalty was sustainable, both against the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Goods classifiable under an excluded tariff heading and not constituting parts of a specific machine do not qualify for Modvat credit as capital goods under Rule 57Q.