1998 (4) TMI 269 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal allowed for 'hydraulic truck unloader' as capital good, credit denied for 'platform ladder' and 'level gauges'.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the admissibility of the 'hydraulic truck unloader' as a capital good under Rule 57Q, based on its immobility ... Modvat - Capital goods Issues:1. Admissibility of certain capital goods under Rule 57Q.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the contest regarding the admissibility of specific capital goods under Rule 57Q. The first item in question is the 'hydraulic truck unloader.' The advocate for the appellant argued that it is a stationary item used for lifting baggese to a platform, emphasizing its immobility. The Advocate presented a schematic diagram to support this claim. The Revenue representative raised concerns about verifying the mobility of the machine. However, upon examining an order from a previous case involving the same goods, the Revenue representative did not press this point. The Tribunal, after analyzing the purpose and operation of the machine, concluded that it qualifies as a capital good under the Explanation to Rule 57Q, thus allowing the appeal.Moving on to the next item, 'walkways platform ladder railing for dryer sections,' credit was denied as it was deemed a part of the structure without contributing to the manufacturing process. The Advocate argued that the walkways platform plays a crucial role in the manufacturing process, but the Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision, stating that it is a structural component and not a capital good.The third item in question is 'load cells,' for which credit was denied due to improper documentation and delayed filing of declarations. The Advocate pointed out that improper documentation was not raised in the show cause notice. The Tribunal observed that the show cause notice did not mention improper documentation as a reason for denial. The Assistant Collector's order focused on the use of load cells for measuring materials rather than contributing to the manufacturing process. As a result, the Tribunal remitted the proceedings back to the Assistant Collector for a detailed assessment of the functional aspects of load cells to determine their admissibility.Lastly, the judgment addressed 'Levcon Refex Type Level Gauge' and 'levcon exten. gauge type level switch,' where credit was denied due to insufficient documentation linking the goods to the appellants. The Tribunal found that the invoices did not establish direct shipment from the manufacturer to the appellants, as required by the Departmental Instructions. As a result, the Tribunal concluded that these items were not eligible for credit under Rule 57Q.In conclusion, the judgment determined that the hydraulic truck unloader is eligible for credit under Rule 57Q, while the walkway platform ladder railing and level gauges and switches are not eligible. The decision regarding load cells was remitted back to the Assistant Collector for further consideration.