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>Appellate Tribunal denies Modvat credit on Ramming Mass for steel manufacturing.</h1> <h3>BENGAL FERRO ALLOY & STEEL LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE</h3> The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CALCUTTA dismissed the appeal by M/s. Bengal Ferro Alloys & Steel Ltd. regarding the disallowance of Modvat credit on ... Modvat credit - Ramming Mass used for coating the bricks used for lining the furnace Issues:- Disallowance of Modvat credit on Ramming Mass used in steel manufacturing process.- Interpretation of Rule 57A regarding eligibility of Ramming Mass as an input for Modvat credit.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CALCUTTA involved an appeal by M/s. Bengal Ferro Alloys & Steel Ltd. against the disallowance of Modvat credit on Ramming Mass used in their steel manufacturing process. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and the Assistant Collector had upheld the disallowance, citing a previous decision regarding the nature of Ramming Mass as part of the furnace equipment. The appellant contended that Ramming Mass and mortar were consumable items used in between heats and were outside the scope of Rule 57A's exclusion. They referenced the Supreme Court judgment in Collector of Central Excise v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. and another decision regarding Modvat credit on gases used for cutting. The appellant argued that Ramming Mass was essential for the manufacturing process, as per the Supreme Court's test of indispensability for the end-product.The Tribunal analyzed Rule 57A, which defines inputs as goods used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, excluding machinery and equipment. The Collector (Appeals) had determined that Ramming Mass did not qualify as an input under Rule 57A as it was not directly used in the steel manufacturing process but for furnace maintenance. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between goods used in the manufacturing process and those used for equipment maintenance. Applying the Supreme Court's test from the Ballarpur case, the Tribunal concluded that Ramming Mass was not utilized in the manufacturing process but for furnace repair, rendering it ineligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments.In summary, the judgment clarifies the interpretation of Rule 57A regarding the eligibility of Ramming Mass as an input for Modvat credit in the steel manufacturing process. The Tribunal differentiated between goods used in the manufacturing process and those used for equipment maintenance, ultimately ruling that Ramming Mass did not qualify as an input under Rule 57A due to its role in furnace maintenance rather than direct involvement in steel production.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
