2007 (1) TMI 182

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1-2005 in Final order No.1506 of 2005 raising the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether the Tribunal went wrong in classifying catalyst as inputs instead of capital goods? (b) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding catalyst as inputs especially when neither the input scheme nor the capital goods scheme classify items based on the nature of the product but only based on the process to which the items are employed? (c) Whether the Tribunal was correct in relying on the various earlier decisions when the very same items can be inputs under certain circumstances and capital goods under different circumstances and the relevant parameter is not the identity of the item but the use to which it is put into? (d) Whethe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the reply, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise by order dated 11-11-2003 held that the impugned catalyst is not falling under the chapters of capital goods as specified in Rule 2 of the Cenvat credit Rules, 2001-2002 and while dropping further proceedings on the show cause notice, the adjudicating authority concluded that even though catalyst are not capital goods they are eligible for Cenvat benefit as input. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The said Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) held that the impugned catalyst is capital goods and hence, he set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Aggrieved by th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er cannot function and hence by all parlance it should be considered as component of converter" 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that Sulphuric acid catalyst could not be considered as capital goods and it should be treated only as inputs and also relied on various Tribunal orders to support his contentions. 5. Heard the counsel on either side. Following the various decisions of the Tribunal, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and held as follows:- "The respondent is engaged in the manufacture of Copper anode, Sulphuric acid and Phosphoric acid. They imported certain catalysts for use in their sulphuric acid plant. These catalysts speeded up the conversion of Sulphur di-oxide into Sulphur tri-oxide. The responden....