Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 Modvat credit was admissible on the profile projector and lathe machine used in the manufacture of needle roller bearings, and whether the credit of Rs. 94,947 was disallowable on account of the timing of entries in the registers.
Analysis: The profile projector was found to be used for dimensional checking and quality control of components essential to the manufacture of needle roller bearings, and the lathe machine was used in the manufacturing process for cutting and shaping components before use. Both items were treated as satisfying the requirement of capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. As to the credit of Rs. 94,947, the entry discrepancy was accepted as a human error because the goods had been received, the relevant registers showed available balance, and there was no overdrawal or revenue loss. The departmental basis for denial was found to be insufficient.
Conclusion: The credit was held admissible and the disallowance was set aside.
Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded in establishing entitlement to Modvat credit on the disputed capital goods and in showing that the accounting discrepancy did not justify denial of credit.
Ratio Decidendi: Machinery and equipment used for quality control, dimensional checking, and integral manufacturing operations qualify as capital goods for Modvat credit, and a mere clerical mismatch in register entries does not justify denial where receipt of goods and absence of revenue loss are established.