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 Notification No. 14/96-C.E. (N.T.) operated retrospectively so as to extend Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to the wagon loader, its spare parts, and diamond grinding wheels as capital goods.
Analysis: The definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q as it stood earlier was replaced by Notification No. 14/96-C.E. (N.T.), which was treated as having retrospective effect. On that footing, the amended regime was taken to govern the availability of credit, and the scope of capital goods was understood with reference to goods used in the factory and falling within the specified tariff headings. Since the wagon loader and the connected spare parts fell within Chapter 84 and the diamond grinding wheels were used for grinding cement or, at any rate, for repairs and maintenance linked with manufacture, the denial of credit was held unsustainable. The earlier contrary view was not accepted as controlling because the retrospective character of the notification had not been specifically dealt with in those decisions.
Conclusion: The goods in question were held eligible for Modvat credit, and the assessee succeeded.
Final Conclusion: The denial of Modvat credit was set aside and consequential relief followed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a later notification replacing the definition of capital goods is held to operate retrospectively, credit eligibility must be determined under the amended definition, and goods used in the factory for manufacture or manufacture-linked purposes cannot be excluded by the earlier restrictive wording.