1998 (6) TMI 272 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal allows Modvat credit on specific items as capital goods under Rule 57Q

SHREE BALKISHAN AGARWAL GLASS Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., KANPUR

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing Modvat credit on specific items like refractory ceramic goods, moulds ... Modvat on capital goods Issues:Challenge to duty confirmation by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding Modvat credit on certain declared capital goods under the Modvat scheme.Detailed Analysis:1. The appellants manufacture glass and glassware, submitting a declaration for Modvat credit on specific capital goods. The Department disallowed credit on certain items like refractory ceramic goods, concrete, and mortar, claiming they were construction materials not affecting the final product. The first authority disallowed credit on most items, upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), except for moulds. The appellants argued that these items were essential components of the furnace, crucial for glass production, and should qualify for Modvat credit as capital goods.2. The appellants contended that items like refractory materials and electro cast refractories were integral to the glass manufacturing process, forming part of the furnace. They argued that these items should be considered capital goods eligible for Modvat credit, as they directly impacted the production of glass and glassware. They highlighted that even though refractories were explicitly included as capital goods later, they had always functioned as such and were crucial for glass production.3. The Department defended the denial of Modvat credit on the grounds that certain items like refractories were only classified as capital goods post an amendment in 1995, making them ineligible during the relevant period. They also argued that materials like cement, mortar, and concrete were construction materials for furnace lining, not contributing to the manufacturing process, thus not qualifying for Modvat credit.4. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and relevant case law. It concluded that refractories were indeed capital goods, whether considered under Rule 57Q or Rule 57A. Referring to previous judgments, the Tribunal clarified that the inclusion of refractories as capital goods was clarificatory and applicable retrospectively. It held that most items in question, except concrete and mortar, were eligible to be considered as capital goods under Rule 57Q.5. Ultimately, the Tribunal modified the impugned order, allowing Modvat credit on items like refractory ceramic goods, moulds for metals, and electro cast refractories as capital goods under Rule 57Q. However, it upheld the exclusion of concrete and mortar as they were deemed construction materials. The appellants were granted consequential benefits under the law for the allowed items.This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, highlights the issues, arguments, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the eligibility of certain capital goods for Modvat credit in the context of glass and glassware manufacturing.