UNION OF INDIA Vs. ADITYA CEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of learned Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellant Tribunal, New Delhi dt. 4. 7. 2003. The question of law raised in this appeal is as under:- "whether the modvat credit was admissible or not on the items used in workshop meant for repairing the machine or machinery which was used for manufacture of final product namely cement. "

(3.) APPARENTLY, emphasis of the appellant is on clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Explanation appended to Rule 57q, which defines `capital goods', which provides for modvat credit on `duty paid capital goods used in manufacture of specified goods', whereas the focus of contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is that wider scope of capital goods appearing from enumeration of various goods included in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (e) of the definition of capital goods contained in Rule 57 A which includes not only machines directly involved or used for producing or processing any goods or for brining about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final products, but eligibility of modvat credit extends to components, spare parts and accessories of the aforesaid machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances used for aforesaid purpose, and moulds and dies, generating sets and weigh-bridges used in the factory of the manufacturer. The different heads of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 enumerated in sub-clause (b) and (d) of clause (1) of Explanation of which we note that for availing modvat credit the direct use of those articles used for producing or processing any goods or for brining about any chance in any substance for the manufacture of final products is not essential.