Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Kinetic Engineering Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 20 February, 2004
ORDER K.D. Mankar, Member (T)
1. This is revenue's appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Vide the impugned order the respondent's claim for Modvat was allowed in respect of several terms. The instant appeal, however challenges the credit extended in respect of Lubricating Oils, greases, engines oils and Hydraulic oils stating that these are used mainly for the maintenance of the machinery and not used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products.
2. Heard the learned D.R. None is present on behalf of the respondents. The appeal seeks support from the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Kanoria Sugar and General Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner reported in 1996 (87) ELT 522 (Tri.) wherein the credit was held inadmissible for lubricants on the ground that these are used for maintenance of the machines.
3. The respondents, in their cross objection, have placed reliance on the Cegat judgment in the case of Sipta Coated Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad reported in 1998 (99) ELT 533 (Tri) wherein the ratio of the judgment in Kanoria Chemicals (supra) was considered and it was held that the credit is permissible, as the use of lubricant oils and Hydraulic oils is essential for friction free operation of machinery and operation of machinery respectively. The Tribunal vide order No. CI-152/99-WZB dated 21.1.99 in the respondent's owen case allowed the credit on the said items. Besides the judgment of the larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Modi Rubber reported in 2000 (119) ELT 197 (L/B) also holds the view that credit is permissible on lubricants and hydraulic oil.
4. consequently I hold that the revenue appeal is without merits and the same is accordingly rejected.