TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (10) TMI 498
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Modvat credit was availed by them on two transformers to the tune of Rs. 46,747 on 28-7-1994. The lower authorities have denied the benefit of Rule 57Q on the ground that the transformers are not meant for the purpose of producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance in the manufacture of final products. The purpose of transformer obviously is to step down the voltage of electricity received by the Appellants in their plant. 1.2 Hence this Appeal before this Tribunal. 2. Short question involved in this Appeal, therefore, is whether the Modvat credit would be permissible on transformers under Rule 57Q as it existed before 16-3-1995. It is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that unless the transformer is used, the plant itself cannot be run and the goods, viz. abrasive materials cannot be manufactured. He also draws attention to the fact that clause (a), inter alia includes the entire plant and clause (b) includes the component of that plant. Component of the plant, according to him, would mean even separate machinery or equipment. He, therefore, submits that the definition of capital goods as it stood before 16-3-1993, is very widely worded and would include all machineries used in a plant, which in turn is used for manufacture of any final products. Viewed in that light, he submits the Modvat credit has been wrongly denied by the lower authorities. He urges for allowing the Appeal. 4. Opposing the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se (d) introduced w.e.f. 16-3-1995 specifically permits transformers of capacity exceeding 75 KVA. He submits that if somebody obtains a transformer of capacity upto 75 KVA, then on the arguments of learned Consultant he would be covered by the clause (b) of the Explanation. There would thus be no need specifically to include transformers of capacity exceeding 75 KVA. In other words, the learned JDR submits that entry (vi) of clause (d) introduced w.e.f. 16-3-1995 would become a nullity. He, therefore, prays for dismissing the appeal.   5. I have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. I find that the plea now taken by the learned Consultant was also taken by another Appellant in the case Collector of Cen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed for producing or processing any goods. The attribute of processing or producing any goods or of bringing about any change applies to machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances and not to component, spare parts, accessories of the aforesaid articles i.e. machines, machinery, plant, equipment etc. Learned Consultant, therefore, submits that there is no substance in the Department's Appeals and consequently in the Stay Petitions: the Appeals, therefore, may be decided by upholding the impugned order. * * * 5. I am inclined to agree with the submissions of the learned Consultant for the Respondents that a plant is also entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit under rule 57Q. It is admitted that the cemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the benefit of Modvat credit to the transformers under Rule 57Q as it existed before 16-3-1995 should be allowed, as I have already done in the case of conveyor belts in the matter of Kalinga Cement Ltd. (supra). 7. I also do not agree with the submission of the learned JDR that Entry No. (vi) in clause (d) would become a nullity. From the reading of clause (d), it appears that the Central Govt. appear to have, as a matter of policy, included certain specific goods on which Modvat credit under Rule 57Q would be admissible. However, I feel, the said goods are also covered by the general definition of clauses (a), (b) and (c) and it is only by way of abundant caution that clause (d) has been introduced to set at rest any controversies....