Capital goods treatment for ink jet coder upheld where printing on containers was integral to marketing and Modvat credit followed.

An ink jet coder used to print essential particulars on product containers, including retail price and manufacturing details, was treated as capital goods because such printing was integral to marketing the final product. On that basis, Modvat credit under Rule 57Q was available. A clerical mistake in the Bill of Entry address did not justify denial of credit where the goods were received in the factory and the appellant's name was shown, so the address objection was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the ink jet coder machine used for printing particulars on the container was capital goods eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q, and whether a mistaken address in the Bill of Entry could justify denial of credit.

Analysis: The machine was used for printing essential particulars such as retail price, date of manufacture and time of manufacture on the container, without which the product could not be marketed. The Tribunal followed earlier precedent holding that a printing machine used for such details on the container of the final product is to be treated as capital goods. The record also showed no allegation that the goods were not received in the factory, and the presence of the banker's address in the Bill of Entry, while the appellant's name was shown, was held to be an insufficient ground to deny credit.

Conclusion: The ink jet coder was held to be capital goods and the assessee was entitled to Modvat credit; the objection based on the Bill of Entry address was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A machine used to print essential product particulars on the container, where such printing is integral to marketing the final product, qualifies as capital goods for Modvat purposes, and a mere clerical error in the Bill of Entry address does not by itself defeat credit when receipt and use of the goods are not in dispute.

---