1994 (11) TMI 262 - AT - Central Excise

Modvat credit denied for steel barrels transporting transformer oil

The Tribunal held that Modvat credit was not available for steel barrels used for transporting transformer oil along with transformers. The Tribunal ... MODVAT Credit Issues:Whether Modvat credit is available for steel barrels used for transporting transformer oil along with transformers.Analysis:The appeals revolve around the availability of Modvat credit in relation to steel barrels used for transporting transformer oil along with transformers. The appellants argued that since the value of transformer oil and barrels is included in the assessable value of the transformer for excise duty purposes, they should be entitled to Modvat credit under Rule 57A. They contended that transformer oil is an essential component of the transformer, and therefore, the benefit of Modvat credit for the packing material barrels should be allowed. The appellants relied on a Supreme Court ruling that emphasized anything forming part of the manufacturing process or required to make the article marketable should be deemed as a raw material or component part of the end-product. However, the Tribunal noted that while coolant is necessary for transformers, the transformer can be considered complete even without the oil at the time of clearance from the factory. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the transformer oil cannot be considered a component of the transformer for the purpose of Modvat credit, and the benefit in respect of the barrels does not arise.The appellants further argued that since the value of the transformer oil and barrels is included in the assessable value of the transformer, they should be granted Modvat credit. The Tribunal clarified that the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act may include elements of cost that are not necessarily relevant to the manufacture of goods. However, the Tribunal highlighted that the Modvat provisions are a self-contained code with specific inclusions and exclusions, and the benefit must be determined based on the interpretation of these provisions. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision to deny the appellants the benefit of Modvat credit for the goods in question.Additionally, the appellants requested that if Modvat credit is not allowed, the value of the transformer oil and drums should not be considered for determining the assessable value. The Tribunal reiterated that the interpretation of Rule 57A and other Modvat provisions should be based on the provisions themselves, and the considerations for determining the assessable value under Section 4 may not always align with the eligibility for Modvat credit. The Tribunal suggested that the appellants could address the valuation issue with the competent authorities under the law, leaving the possibility for further review of the valuation matter.