SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
K.S. VENKATARAMANI, S.S. KANG, JJ.
J.K. Synthetics Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur -Respondent
Final Order No. A/2241/96-NB Appeal No. E/1378/95-NB, A/2241 of 1996, E/1378 of 1995
Decided On : 10-09-1996

Advocates Appeared:
A.N. Haksar, Sanjay Grover,Jangir Singh

ORDER

Per K.S. Venkataramani :

This appeal is directed against the order dated 12/13.7.95 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Jaipur by which he has disallowed the modvat credit on capital goods Rs. 32,001,151.80 under Rule 57 U of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and has also imposed penalty of Rs. one lakh on the appellants, herein. The appellants manufacture polyester staple fiber and nylon filament yarn and polyester filament yarn. They submitted a declaration under Rule 57 T of Central Excise Rule. The department found that the appellants had taken the above said modvat credit for the period from April, 1994 to June, 1994 on the electrical goods of Chapter 85, namely, load power supply, panels, cables, junction box, transformers, printed circuits and other items or chapter 84 and of Chapter 90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, namely, master cord station monitor controller I/P Assessembly controller resistance, I/P cord as mentioned in the annexure to the show cause notice, which were not used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about change in any substance for the manufacture of the final product, namely, polyester fibre. The department was of the view that these materials are, for the purpose of only giving the required power supply, etc. to the machine and machinery used in the manufacture of the final product. They do not produce any electricity, but only facilitate supplying the requisite quantity of power to the plant. A show cause notice was issued on credit availed on these goods. The ground, as above, flows from the department's interpretation of the definition of capital goods given in Rule 57 Q (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which provided for modvat credit of duty paid on capital goods used by the manufacturer in his factory for utilising it for payment of duty on the final products and the Explanation thereto definining capital goods.

2. The Commissioner considered the various submissions made in response to the show cause notice and briefly recorded the use of the goods as follows:-

1. Cables are used for maintaining electricity to various consuming points.

2. Load power supply is used for power supply.

3. PLC Panels with standared accessories give digital Anolog signals to the field and receive signals from the field.

4. Junction Box is used for cable terminations.

5. Transformer is used for storage and supply of electric power.

6. Printed circuits are used for control room instruments and may however be fitted with non printed connecting elements.

7. Master cord station Monitor controller I/P.

8. Controller resistance are used in calibrating and deciding range of temperature.

9. Heating elements are used for heating purpose.

10. CPU for Main line and Master penal is used in transmitting and receiving data.

and concluded that these are not capital goods falling within the scope of definition of the term in Rule 57Q (1) as these are not used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of the final product. The Commissioner, further, concluded that the goods, in question, are electrical goods and controlling instruments which are used for storage and supply of electricity and for maintaining required parameters of such supply to the various consuming points in the factory. The present appeal has been filed against this order.

3. Sh. A.N. Haskar, ld. sr. Counsel for the appellants alongwith ld. Counsel, Sh. Sanjay Grover, made submissions both on the legal aspects as well as technical aspects of the case. it was submitted that a perusal of Rule 57A and Explanation thereto relating to modvat would show that by virtue of the Explanation, certain goods in the nature of capital goods are artificially excluded from the provisions of this Rule. Under Rule 57Q, these very items, which have been excluded, where brought under the heading 'capital goods'. Therefore, it was argued that the exclusion from Rule 57A of ce

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top