2006 (7) TMI 38

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ement and (ii) Steel angles. The assessee's appeals are against denial of credit on cement and angles and the same will be considered a little later in this order. It is submitted by learned SDR that, among the 3 appeals filed by department, only one is being pressed and the same is Appeal No. E/840/1999. In view of this submission, Appeal Nos. E/841 and 842/1999 are dismissed In Appeal No. E/840/ 1999, the challenge is contained in the 2nd paragraph of the "GROUNDS OF APPEAL", reading as under: "But in the present case, the inputs cement and angles are used for civil structure and fabrication of structure on which the intermediate capital goods are erected and not used for the manufacture of capital goods. Therefore, credit of duty on t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....atively prayed for capital goods credit under Rule 57Q. In Appeal No. E/672/ 1999 filed by the assessee, the challenge is against denial of credit for the period November, 1997 to March, 1998 and, in Appeal No. E/'675/1999, the challenge is against denial of credit for the period March, 1997 to October, 1997. Under Rule 57Q, as amended with effect from 01.03.1997, eligibility of capital goods for Modvat credit was dependent on the classification of such goods in the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. Capital goods falling under specified Chapters/Headings/Sub-Headings of the Schedule were mentioned in the above Rule for the purpose of Modvat credit. Neither cement (Chapter 25) nor steel structurals (Chapter 73) was so mentioned and therefore c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d., 2005 (188) ELT 304 (Tri.-Chennai) and in the case of Lloyds Metals and Engineers Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur, 2003 (59) RLT 342 (CESTAT-Mum.)=2003 (162) ELT 847 (Tri.-Mumbai), in support of his claim of capital goods credit on cement. On the other hand, learned SDR has relied on the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of Malavika Steel Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad, 1998 (24) RLT 189 (CEGAT.)=1998 (97) ELT 530 (Tribunal), (Usha Ispat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, 2003 (156) ELT 929 (Tri.-Munthai), Usha Ispat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Puise, 2000(125) ELT 1184 (Tribunal) etc. in support of her contention that capital goods credit is not admissible to ceme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... credit, despite the fact that they have raised only the plea for input duty credit in respect of the same item before the lower authorities. This legal position was laid down by the Tribunal's Larger Bench in Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Meerut-I Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd., 2000 (38) RLT 718 (CEGAT LB)=2000 (119) ELT 197 (Tribunal-LB). In the result, we hold that capital goods credit under Rule 57Q is admissible to the assessee in respect of steel angles used in fabrication of conveyors for the period prior to 23.07.1996, the date on which the earlier Clauses (a) and (b) of Explanation (1) to sub-rule (1) of Rule 57Q were done away with. It was under those Clauses that, prior to 23.07.1996, plant, machinery, equipments, appliances e....