Just a moment...
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 forklift truck was eligible for Modvat credit as an input under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules and whether Rule 57Q had any application.
Analysis: The Tribunal followed the decision in the assessee's own case and accepted that the forklift truck was used for movement of goods within the factory and outside, and was therefore an input for the purpose of Rule 57A. It distinguished material handling systems of a different nature and applied the principle that goods handling integrally connected with the manufacturing process can fall within the scope of input. The Tribunal also held that reference to Rule 57Q was unnecessary because the show cause notice did not invoke that rule, and the department could not support its objection with any evidence at the appellate stage. The absence of a proper factual foundation in the show cause notice was held fatal to the department's case.
Conclusion: Forklift truck was held to be eligible input for Modvat credit under Rule 57A, and the departmental objection based on Rule 57Q failed. The appeal was decided in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where goods handling equipment is used within the factory in a manner integrally connected with manufacture, and the show cause notice does not invoke the exclusionary provision relied upon by the department, Modvat credit cannot be denied under Rule 57A.