Judgment 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order dated 12-1-2005 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, the Tribunal) inA.No.E/4868/04- B, proposing following substantial questions of law :- (i) Whether the inputs used in the fabrication, erection and installation of Cold Rolling Mill can be treated as capital goods? (ii) Whether Modvat credit on the inputs used in the fabrication, erection and installation of Cold Rolling Mill was admissible under the erstwhile Rule 57A or 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944? (iii) Whether the credit availed by the assessee under erstwhile Rule 57Q by misdeclaring the inputs as capital goods tantamount to suppression of facts and the provisions relating to extended period of limitation for recovery of credit wrongly availed were applicable as per erstwhile Rule 57I(1)(ii) and 57U(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944? 2. The assessee claimed Modvat credit on capital goods used for manufacture of final products in the factory of the assessee. The assessee filed declaration declaring the goods to be parts of capital goods. The credit was availed by the assessee in the year 1998 after filing declaration as well as RT-12 returns. 3. The department gave show cause notice dated 12-3-2001 alleging that the goods used by the assessee were inputs and credit was not admissible as capital goods. 4. The assessee raised objection that the credit was rightly availed of and in any case, in absence of any suppression of material facts, extended period of limitation being not available, the Modvat credit could not be withdrawn. After considering the explanation of the assessee, the adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings. It was observed that capital goods in respect of which Modvat credit was claimed were clearly covered by Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short, the Rules) and use thereof in the factory could be held to be used in the manufacture of final products. It was also found that the assessee had not suppressed any facts and had filed the requisite declarations. 5. The findings recorded by the adjudicating authority were challenged by the revenue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue with the following observations :- 4. We have gone through the record and we find that there is no tangible evidence to substantiate the stand of the revenue. 5. The findings recorded by the adjudicating authority were challenged by the revenue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue with the following observations :- 4. We have gone through the record and we find that there is no tangible evidence to substantiate the stand of the revenue. The goods in question could not be said to be inputs as the same were parts of the capital goods installed in the factory premises ofthe respondents. The respondents had even filed the declaration, declaring the goods as part of the capital goods, before availing the Modvat credit. The learned Commissioner in the impugned order has recorded detailed reasons for holding the goods as parts of the capital goods, and we do not find any sufficient ground to disagree with his findings. 5. Similarly, the learned Commissioner, in our view has rightly disallowed the invocation of the extended period of limitation. The credit was availed by the respondents in the year 1998 and due intimation was given to the department as they had filed the declaration as well as the RT-12 returns, whereas the show cause notice was issued only on 12-3-2001. Since the respondents had not suppressed any material facts from the department, the extended period of limitation, could not be legally invoked. We are in full agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner that the demand is time-barred. 6. Learned Counsel for the revenue has not been able to show as to how the goods used by the assessee in fabrication, erection or installation of Mill could not be held to be capital goods. In any case, in view of clear finding of fact that the assessee had not suppressed facts and as such extended period of limitation was not applicable, the adjudicating authority rightly dropped the proceedings which has been upheld by the Tribunal. 7. In view of the above findings, we do not find any substantial question of law arising for entertaining the appeal. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.