Mallur Siddeswara Spinning Mills (P) ... vs C.C.E., Coimbatore on 18 March, 2004
6. The contention of learned Additional Solicitor? General that the aforesaid decision and other decisions referred by the Tribunal in the impugned order were cases involving sales tax and income tax and, therefore, the Tribunal should not have relied on those decisions is without any substance because the real question is that of the principle laid down by a decision. In view of the liberal language of the provision; Mr. Rohtagi fairly and very rightly did not seriously dispute that if any of the items enumerated in explanation 1(a) is used for any purpose mentioned therein for the manufacture of final products, it would satisfy the test of Capital goods. The main contention of Mr. Rohtagi, however, is that the question whether an item falls within the definition of Capital goods would depend upon the user it is put to. The submission is that parts of the items in respect whereof availing of Modvat credit has been allowed by the Tribunal could not be treated as Capital goods as the manufacturer could not establish that the entire item was used in the manufacture of final product. To illustrate his point, Mr. Rohtagi submitted that part of a cable may go into the machine used by the manufacturer and, thus, may qualify the requirement of clause 1(a) and, at the same time, another part of the cable which is used only for lights and fans would not so qualify. We have no difficulty in accepting the contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General that, under these circumstances, user will determine whether an item qualifies or not the requirement of clause 1(a). However, in the present cases this aspect has no relevance. It was not the case of the revenue at any stage before the authorities that an item does not satisfy the requirement of Capital goods within the meaning of the Rule on the ground of its user as it now sought to be urged by the learned counsel. The case of the revenue has all through been that the items in question per se are not Capital goods within the meaning of the expression as defined in Explanation 1(a). In respect of the cables of which Mr. Rohtagi gave example, the stand of the revenue before the Tribunal was that the cables per se cannot be treated as Capital goods. The stand of the revenue was not as has been projected now by Mr. Rohtagi. In this view, the question of directing remand of these matters for fresh decision by the Tribunal does not arise. On the facts and circumstances of these cases, therefore, the stand that the items in question are not used for manufacture of final product cannot be accepted for the reasons aforestated.