ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This is a Revenue appeal arising from Order-in-Appeal No. 132/2004 (G) CE dated 23.6.2004. The finding recorded by Commissioner in Para 4 & 5 are reproduced herein below:
4. I have gone through the case records and the submissions of the appellants urged at the time of personal hearing. The issue regarding availment of modvat credit on components, spares and accessories under erstwhile Rule 57Q of CE Rules, 1944, was examined by the Hon’ble Board of Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi. The Board has clarified the matter by issue of Circular No. 276/110/96-TRU dated 2.12.96. Para 3 of 4 of the said circular are reproduced below:
3. The matter has been examined with effect from 23.7.1996. Capital goods eligible for credit under Rule 57Q have been specified either by their classification or by their description. Clauses (a) to (c) of Explanation (1) of the said rule cover capital goods by their classification whereas Clause (d) covers goods by their description viz., components, spares and accessories of the said capital goods. It may be noted that there is a separate entry for components, spares and accessories and no reference has been made about their classification. As such the scope of this entry is not restricted only to the components, spares and accessories falling under Chapters 82, 84, 85 or 90 but covers components, spares and accessories of the specified goods irrespective of the classification. The same was the position prior to amendment in Rule 57Q prior to 23.7.1996 when credit was available on components, spares and accessories of the specified capital goods irrespective of their classification.
4. Accordingly, it is clarified that all parts, components, accessories which are to be used with capital goods of Clauses (a) to (c) of Explanation of Rule 57Q and classifiable under any chapter heading are eligible for availment of modvat credit.
5. In view of above clarification, the issue stands as settled in favour of the appellants. In addition to above circular, there are numerous decisions of the appellate authorities holding that credit is admissible on components, spares and accessories of the specified capital goods. In Jawahar Mills case , the Hon’ble Court has ruled that language of Rule 57Q of CE Rules, 1944 is very liberal and if any of the items enumerated in the Explanation of the said rule is used for any purpose mentioned therein for the manufacture of final goods, it would satisfy the test of capital goods. The goods specified in the explanation for availing modvat as capital goods need not be used in the manufacture of final product, only requirement is that they should be used in the factory of production. I find that there is no dispute regarding utilization of the impugned items in the factory of the appellants in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. Therefore, the appellants are eligible to claim benefit of credit in respect of spares/components of the machinery used by them in relation to manufacture of final product. Therefore, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Guntur Division, denying benefit of modvat credit is not tenable. The same is contrary to the legal position laid down by the Court and the appellate authorities. Hence, the order is liable to be set aside. Benefit is not deniable to the appellants.
2. The Revenue is aggrieved with this finding and contend that the Apex Court judgment is clearly distinguishable in the present case, since the same was delivered based on the definition of capital goods as it stood at that time when the same were defined by description but not by classification. It is submitted that subsequently capital goods were defined by their classification. Therefore, the denial of credit by the lower authorities is justified.
3. The learned SDR prayed for setting aside the order.
4. On a careful consideration, we notice that the Commissioner has thoroughly examined the issue and has found that the items are eligible for the credit. He has rightly applied the ratio of the Apex Court judgment and there is no way to distinguish the same. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.
(Pronounced and dictated in open Court)