TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (10) TMI 310
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid machines and equipments. Accordingly M/s. S.S. Engineers supplied various equipments and machines from time to time. The said equipments/machines were either manufactured by M/s. S.S. Engineers in their factory or were get manufactured by them from other manufacturers on job work basis or sale basis. As per appellants say all the said equipments/machines were directly supplied at their factory site either from the factory of M/s. S.S. Engineers or from the factory of M/s. S.S. Engineers job workers or suppliers under cover of Central Excise invoices on which their factories name and address was specifically mentioned as consignee. These equipments/machines were subsequently erected and commissioned by M/s. S.S. Engineers at the factory ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y SS Engineers in the manufacture of sugar plant at their factory site and hence the credit of duty paid on the said machines/equipments was available to M/s. S.S. Engineers as they have used the inputs, in the manufacture of sugar plant and that the credit on the said machines/equipments cannot be availed by them (appellant) as capital goods. It was submitted that in similar situation, the Tribunal has held in a series of decisions holding that even where the machine is installed and erected by contractor, who purchased parts and components, in the factory premises belonging to another, the manufacturer of the goods in whose factory premises the equipment and plant is installed is entitled to Modvat credit under the then Rule 57Q, as parts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had assembled the same into generating set. However, in their case, as per the agreement M/s. SS Engineers has sold the sugar plant to the appellant and not the components etc. and hence the said decision is not applicable in the appellants case. 4. It was submitted that the Tribunal has in Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. observed that credit is admissible to the assessee without making resort to provision of Rule 57T(7). The Tribunal has also clarified that the credit on component, spares/accessories (even though they are used by erection contractor in the manufacture of DG set) is admissible to the assessee, since component, spares/accessories by itself are specifically declared as capital goods and that as the assessee's factory cannot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le 57T(7) under Modvat Credit Rules, in Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/02, the credit on capital goods on which duty is paid by the job worker, who has entrusted job of initial setting up of the plant is not admissible, is totally against the spirit of the Cenvat Credit Scheme and hence cannot be accepted. 5. It was further submitted that the finding of the Commissioner that the decision in NRC Ltd. is not applicable in their case, as the facts are different is totally wrong. In their case also like NRC's case, two separate agreements were made, one for supply of various machinery/equipments and another for erection and commissioning the said machinery and equipment. In view of the same, the facts are identical and the decision is squarely....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assembled and machinery installed. While in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cements, the credit has been extended mainly on account of the fact that Rule 57T(7) did provide for availment of credit in case parts and machinery got erected through a job worker, the Tribunal did make an observation that the credit can be allowed under the provisions of Rule 57Q itself without taking resort to provision of Rule 57T(7). However, in the case of NRC Ltd., the Tribunal did not refer to the provision of Rule 57T(7) and allowed the credit on the basis of Rule 57Q under which the parts and components of capital goods are also entitled to Modvat credit as inputs for the manufacture of goods to be produced out of such machinery for the installation of which ....