Modvat credit on lubricants and manufacturing accessories upheld, but original invoice use failed without proof of lost duplicate copy.

Lubricating oils and greases used to keep manufacturing machinery operating smoothly were treated as inputs used in or in relation to manufacture, so Modvat credit was admissible. Credit on the strength of the original invoice was not allowed unless the assessee first satisfied the jurisdictional authority that the duplicate copy had been lost in transit; that statutory condition was not met, so credit was disallowed on that ground. Cables, cable wires, CI slag box and roll tyre secondary crusher were accepted as capital goods or accessories integrally connected with production, and credit on those items was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether lubricating oils and greases used for lubrication of machines employed in manufacture qualified as inputs for Modvat credit, (ii) whether Modvat credit could be availed on the strength of the original invoice without first satisfying the authority about loss of the duplicate copy, and (iii) whether credit was admissible on cables, cable wires, CI slag box and roll tyre secondary crusher as capital goods or accessories used in the manufacturing process.

Issue (i): whether lubricating oils and greases used for lubrication of machines employed in manufacture qualified as inputs for Modvat credit.

Analysis: Lubrication of machinery was held to be essential for the smooth working of the machines and for the manufacture of the final products. Such lubricants were regarded as goods used in or in relation to manufacture and not as merely incidental items used for better operation of machinery. The larger Bench view that lubricants used for machinery lubrication fall within the expression "inputs" was applied.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and Modvat credit on lubricants and greases was held admissible.

Issue (ii): whether Modvat credit could be availed on the strength of the original invoice without first satisfying the authority about loss of the duplicate copy.

Analysis: The requirement that credit be taken on the prescribed invoice copy was treated as mandatory. Credit on the original invoice could be taken only after the assessee satisfied the jurisdictional authority that the duplicate copy had been lost in transit. That condition had not been met on the facts found by the lower authorities.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and the credit on this ground was disallowed.

Issue (iii): whether credit was admissible on cables, cable wires, CI slag box and roll tyre secondary crusher as capital goods or accessories used in the manufacturing process.

Analysis: The items were examined with reference to their role in the manufacturing process and the settled view that goods functioning as apparatus, accessories or components integrally connected with production may qualify for credit. The Tribunal accepted the findings that the disputed items were used in the process of manufacture and fell within the relevant capital goods coverage.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and credit on these items was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The common controversy on Modvat entitlement was substantially resolved for the assessees, but one appeal failed on the invoice-copy requirement, resulting in a mixed disposal with most revenue challenges rejected and the assessee's substantive credit claim largely sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods used for lubrication of machinery that are essential to the manufacturing process are inputs used in or in relation to manufacture, and credit conditions prescribed by the rules must be strictly complied with for availing Modvat benefit.

---