Capital goods credit under Rule 57Q allowed for foundation cement and rod material, but denied for equipment used outside the factory.

Rule 57Q credit was allowed for cement used to form the civil foundation supporting plant and machinery, following the respondents' earlier final order and treating the foundation material as credit-eligible for the relevant period. Credit was also allowed for 20 mm rod material used in fabricating a new cement mill, because structural materials had already been accepted as eligible and a pending civil appeal without stay did not displace that position. Credit was denied for the Tooth Point component of a hydraulic excavator used outside the factory, as the rule then in force did not permit Modvat credit on capital goods used outside the factory. The Revenue succeeded only on that issue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cement used in constructing the civil foundation as structural support to plant and machinery was eligible for capital goods credit under Rule 57Q; (ii) Whether Tooth Point component of a hydraulic excavator used outside the factory was eligible for capital goods credit under Rule 57Q; (iii) Whether 20 mm rod material used in fabrication of a new cement mill was eligible for capital goods credit under Rule 57Q.

Issue (i): Whether cement used in constructing the civil foundation as structural support to plant and machinery was eligible for capital goods credit under Rule 57Q.

Analysis: The item had already been allowed credit in an earlier final order passed in the respondents' own case. The Tribunal preferred that view over contrary decisions rendered in other matters and treated the cement used for the foundation as credit-eligible for the relevant period.

Conclusion: The credit on cement was admissible and the Revenue's challenge failed on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether Tooth Point component of a hydraulic excavator used outside the factory was eligible for capital goods credit under Rule 57Q.

Analysis: Rule 57Q, as applicable during the period in dispute, did not permit Modvat credit on capital goods used outside the factory of production. The component in question fell within that restriction, and the position was supported by the Supreme Court decision relied upon in the order.

Conclusion: The credit on Tooth Point was not admissible and the Revenue succeeded on this issue.

Issue (iii): Whether 20 mm rod material used in fabrication of a new cement mill was eligible for capital goods credit under Rule 57Q.

Analysis: Structural materials such as steel rods had already been treated as eligible for credit in the respondents' earlier proceedings. The pendency of a civil appeal against a similar order did not alter the position in the absence of any stay of operation, and the same view was applied here.

Conclusion: The credit on 20 mm rod material was admissible and the Revenue's challenge failed on this issue.

Final Conclusion: Credit was upheld for cement and 20 mm rod material, but denied for Tooth Point, leaving the Revenue appeals only partly successful.

Ratio Decidendi: Credit under Rule 57Q is admissible for items treated as eligible capital goods or structural materials within the factory, but not for capital goods used outside the factory during the relevant period.

---