MAIHAR CEMENT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides and perused records. The issue raised is whether credit was available to the appellant in respect of H.V. Transformer received by them under Rule 57Q. The appellant's declaration mentioned the items as under: -

(2.) Credit has been denied on the basis that according to the declaration, the H.V. Transformer in question is a spare part of cement mill and cement mills themselves being excluded from Modvat credit (as they fall under Tariff item 84.74) credit was not available its spare parts. This view is being canvassed by the learned DR also in the present proceedings.

(3.) The contention of the appellant is that under Rule 57Q as it stood at the time of the appellant's claim, credit was available on all goods falling under Chapter 85 [57Q1(b)] other than the items falling under certain headings specified therein. Transformer in question fall under 8504. It is not one of the items excluded under the rule. Learned Counsel appearing for the assessee has submitted that when eligibility of credit is specified in terms of classification of the capital goods in question, no other criterion is relevant for the purpose of determining the eligibility. He also points out that the amplification made by the appellant in the declaration ("spares of cement mill used for grinding purposes") is not relevant for determining the issue, inasmuch as it is not the declaration which confers the benefit of Modvat credit, but the relevant Rule.