The High Court dismissed an application to refer a question of law. A single Judge held that the Tribunal's decision allowing MODVAT credit on various capital goods items involved factual findings, not a question of law, and thus no reference is warranted.
Application to refer a question of law dismissed; Tribunal order affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
k K v Av ..
.. ._ ; g L :: ‘ 3 ‘ \0 V ,t —‘ ' (sE‘QVIRuleNon E005.218(1) )Q\“ mac I L FORM 0%gLICATION To THE HIGH COLBLUNDER SEc'i'Io? 35%;; ‘ OF THE NTRAL Excxsai‘c'r, 19g :n‘the High Court o£ Judicature at JABALPUR(M.P. ) In the matter ofAppeal-N‘o.E/A87/98—NB(SM)‘ of ComissionerS ‘klelinks of Central Excise. Raipur(M?) Vs. M/so Vindhya / Limited, Rewa (M9) Application No. QE‘K I [O o f g?— 2000 Commissioner, . . Applicant Customs and Centr'al Excise: Raipu; - 492 001 (M.PL) — Versus — ‘ M/so Vindhya 'IElelinks Limited. a . Résyondent UdyogVihara P.0a - Chorhata, gewa (LQIEQ
HIGH COURT OF CHHAWM‘AT 31m
DB: HON’BLE’“MR. ABHAY“MMOMRSAPRE"& HON’ELE MR. r G. ‘MINHAJUDDIN'; 3JJ. '
amn: No.10]2000 k
Applicant
Commissioner, Customs 85 Central Excise; Raipur,
M] s. Vinahyavrclennks Ltd.
Application under Section351-111)of£heCentral ExciseAct, 1944.
Pmsent : Smt. Smiti Shanna; canned; forthe appellant
O RDER R
(weedon3"”July‘,2012’s
The following order of the-«hurt was passedby Ahhay‘Manohnr Supra,J.
Heard.
’l‘ri 3. By impugmd order, the allowed the appeal H nled by the assessee and set asiclevtheorder passedbythe p‘ adjudicating authority and that 0% the Connnissioner ’of‘ Appeal. . 4-. So the short quesh’on‘that arises for‘oonsnemtioninn this reference application is whetheranyreferable quesiion‘" 'r of law arises or not so as tocalltheTribunaltovrefer‘the: same to this Court in its-reference juiisdiciion?
’I‘Iibunal 5. This is what the hcld- While aliowing'the’ assessee’s appeal and setting aside the onier of the adjudicating authority and that of the Commissioner of Appeal. “Modvat' credit has been disallowed» - onthe iinal items used by the appeliants who are manufmturers of Telecommunication cables: r Grease Pump Pumping Unit Computer partshOODOlHGuard Hub Blades Nut and bolt ' 2 I have heard both the sides and perused the records. and§ record'my . findings as under: { 1. Grease Pump: Thie .is a hand operated Grease pump“ having a container barrel and springi load piston and when operated with the'éhand',‘ wasar comes out with pressure %thmugh the " hose provided with nozzlelattaehment. The Grease-pump is used-”for lubricating of'M/c parts bearings bushes sliding. partsetc. It’ has been. held‘byilth‘e Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut Vs. Bhustian $tee1 d; Strips Ltdsreported in (1998 .(101)‘ELT 422) that Gear pumpsfor, hydraulic oil a distribution are used for producing or processing of final- ,producti or brmgng about change in the. pmduc swhicham finally used'in‘ the manufa ture of final w product and hence elig'bl’ r to medvat credit aseapital goodsunder Rule 57Q. The ratio o‘f this decision is required to be follow-ed; hence I hold that iihese pumps are eligible to credit. i 2. Pumping unit: The ratio of the mbunal’s , order. in the .ca‘se‘i or Bhushan Steel. 85 Strips is equally ‘ applicable-to pumpmgunittocirculatelubrication011 from a sump provided in the main gear "e. box of wire threadingtmac Henceaf, ~ I hold that credit is available op'this item. 3. Computer Parts The parts on which credit has been denibduare parts used in computer which used for rectification of cables and ence to be considered as parts of testin equipment. I find that in“ the case of the same assessees'r the“ Tribunal videt its iinal order No. A’”865/99 NB dated Q6899 has held that testing. equipment like Thermo couple is capital go'odior the purposeof‘modvat;Thesarhereasoning would be applicable in the case; of the computers which ,V are ‘vusedw for}
testing/rectification of cables and parts would be covered by clause (b),ofthe explanation to Rule 570. They are therefore, elig‘ble for'modvat credit. 4. Guard Hub Blades: These are partsrofcooling:tower. Itis a ciwulating fan fitted on top of cooling towertocool the water to bring downtthetemperature ' for industrial purposesm It has been held by the Tribunal in the ease of Kanoria Chemicals 8s Industries Ltd Vs, C.O.E. Allahabadreported in 1997 (95)» ELT301 that hub and blades classifiabie under heading 8415 of the Tariffwhichcovers oil and parts, are eligible to modvat credit 1n terms of Rule 57Q Following the ratxo of this declslon, I hold that theappellants are entltled to modvat credyt on Guard Hub blades 5. Nuts and bolts. Although these are admlttedly general purpose1tems,as far as the appellantsareconcerned they are used for f1tt1ng parts duml'xg assembly ‘ and for fabrication of machmes and, hence applymg the ratlo oftheTmbunal’ declsmn 1n the case of the same assessee ’Vide final order No 865/99 NB date 26 8 99 l hold that thls Item ls ehg1bleto credtt under rule 57Q In the result I ‘hold that the items in dispute are capital goodsWithin the meaning of Rule 57Q‘ and hence ehgble to motlvatcredlt set as1de the unpugned order andallowthe appeal"
2 issues framed by the court
Whether any referable question of law arises under Section 35 H(1) to call the Tribunal to refer the matter to the High Court.
Whether items like grease pumps, pumping units, computer parts, guard hub blades, and nuts and bolts are capital goods eligible for MODVAT credit under Rule 57Q.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut Vs. Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd.Followed¶17
(1998. (101) ELT 422)
Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd Vs. C.O.E. AllahabadFollowed¶17
1997 (95) ELT 301
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise
M/s. Vindhya Telelinks Limited
Abhay Manohar
G. Minhajuddin
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
