Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Commissioner Of Customs & Central ... vs Stadfast Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. on 2 June, 2003
ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical)
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to credit under Rule 57Q of the duty paid on a boiler and magnetic tape stated to be part of the boiler. While the Asst. Commissioner denied the credit on the ground that the steam generated in the boiler was exempted from duty and the further ground the boiler at the relevant time was not specified as a capital goods in the explanation below Sub-rule (1) under Rule 57Q. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the credit on the ground that the amendment made to the Rule 57Q subsequently incorporating a boiler was clarificatory in nature and retrospective and also on the ground that the definition of capital goods as it existed at the relevant time was such as to include the boiler and its part within its scope. This is challenged in the appeal by the Commissioner.
2. I have heard the department representative. The respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice.
3. The appeal repeats the contention in notice issued to the assessee. At the relevant time, before the rule was amended to specifically include boilers, the definition of capital goods before Rule 57Q(i) included in Clause (a) machine machinery, plant etc., used in producing or processing of any goods or in bringing about change in any substance for the manufacture of the final product. Clause b(ix) allowed specified component parts of such machines or machinery. The boiler in question produced steam and was therefore covered by Clause 1(a) and the magnetic tape by Clause 1(ix). This is therefore not a valid ground for denying credit. Rule 57R denied credit in cases where the capital goods are used exclusively for production or a product which is exempted from duty. The final product referred to in Rule 57Q is finished excisable goods. The final product would therefore be finished goods that the manufacturer makes and clears. The steam, which is used in this process therefore cannot be said to be a final product. It would be an intermediate product referred to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57Q.
4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.