Capital goods credit on plant insulation allowed, but construction materials and floor lining denied as civil construction items.

Ceramic fibre used to insulate the furnace and steam pipeline qualified as capital goods credit because those items formed part of the plant and the fibre functioned as an insulation component or accessory under Rule 57Q; credit was therefore admissible. Cement used for construction purposes was treated as civil construction material, not as plant-related capital goods, so credit was not admissible. Coromastic brick lining used for the factory floor was also regarded as civil construction material, with no specialised manufacturing use shown, so credit was not admissible.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether capital goods credit was admissible on ceramic fibre used to insulate the furnace and steam pipeline; (ii) whether capital goods credit was admissible on cement used for construction purposes; and (iii) whether capital goods credit was admissible on coromastic brick lining used for lining the factory floor.

Issue (i): Whether capital goods credit was admissible on ceramic fibre used to insulate the furnace and steam pipeline.

Analysis: Furnace and the pipeline for conveyance of steam formed part of the plant. Ceramic fibre was used as insulation for these plant components and therefore fell within the scope of parts, components or accessories of plant under the definition of capital goods in Rule 57Q as applicable during the relevant period.

Conclusion: Capital goods credit was admissible on ceramic fibre, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether capital goods credit was admissible on cement used for construction purposes.

Analysis: The claim was only that cement was used for construction purpose, without a clear assertion that it was used in the construction of the plant rather than in civil construction. On that basis, the item was treated as having been used in civil construction, which did not qualify for capital goods credit.

Conclusion: Capital goods credit was not admissible on cement, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether capital goods credit was admissible on coromastic brick lining used for lining the factory floor.

Analysis: The factory floor was treated as part of the building itself, and the bricks were regarded as materials used in civil construction. No specialized use connected with the manufacturing process was shown.

Conclusion: Capital goods credit was not admissible on coromastic brick lining, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of ceramic fibre, while the denial of credit on cement and coromastic brick lining was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Materials used as insulation for plant components qualify as capital goods credit where they function as parts, components or accessories of the plant, but materials used in civil construction do not.

---