Page 171 - GSTL_3rd September 2020_Vol 40_Part 1

2020 ] IN RE : P.K. MAHAPATRA 105
for bringing about any change for the manufacture of the final
product. We have already pointed out that the aforesaid conclusion
of the Commissioner is not only factually incorrect and perverse but
legally unsustainable as well.
(j) Resultantly, we set aside the order of the Commissioner as well as
of CEGAT insofar as it pertains to item “railway track material used
for handling raw materials, process goods” and hold that the appel-
lant has rightfully claimed for Modvat credit in respect of this item
which credit is wrongly reversed by the authorities below. To that
extent, order of the Commissioner as well CEGAT is set aside and
the present appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.”
(k) That, the Appellant would also like to quote decision of Hon’ble
High Court of Rajasthan in case of Aditya Cement [2008 (221) E.L.T.
362 (Raj.)] wherein in Para 20 it was held that :
“So far as the claim to Railway Track material is concerned, it is
common ground that the same has been used for transporting of
coal and product of cement. Apparently, though the coal is not end
product of the appellant but used as essential adjunct of plant for
feeding it with fuel, the essential element of production process for
manufacture of cement. Without supply of fuel the plant does not
function. Therefore, the Railway Track used for one of the essential
activity of running the plant itself cannot be kept out of considera-
tion for availing Modvat credit though which is not being used di-
rectly for the purpose of manufacture of cement. But if as an inte-
gral part of manufacturing cement bringing of coal directly to the
machine from site, railway track is used, it becomes part of plant
and of manufacturing process. Similarly, until the end product
reaches in deliverable state, it remains part of the manufacturing
process. In view of this matter the claim of the assessee in respect of
Modvat credit of duty paid on railway track material deserves to be
sustained.”
(l) The Appellant also wishes to quote Hon’ble Supreme Court in its
decision in Commissioner of C. Ex., Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills Ltd.,
2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) page 3 wherein for weighbridge following
has been while considering the definition of capital goods under
Rule 57Q even after its amendment said :
“4. The aforesaid definition of ‘Capital goods’ is very wide. Capi-
tal goods can be machines, machinery, plant equipments, appa-
ratus, tools or appliances. Any of these goods if used for producing
or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any
substance for the manufacture of final product would be ‘Capital
goods, and, therefore, qualify for availing Modvat credit. Per clause
(b), the components, spare parts and accessories of the goods men-
tioned in clause (a) used for the purposes enumerated therein
would also be ‘Capital goods’ and qualify for Modvat credit enti-
tlement. Clause (c) make moulds and dies, generating sets and
weighbridges used in the factory of the manufacturers as capital
goods and thus qualify for availing Modvat credit. The goods enu-
merated in clause (c) need not be used for producing the final
product or used in the process of any goods for the manufacture of
final product or used for bringing about any change in any sub-
stance for the manufacture of final product and the only require-

GST LAW TIMES  3rd September 2020  187