Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
M/S. Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai ... on 28 February, 2001
ORDER GN Srinivasan, Member (J)
1. This is an application for stay of collection of Rs. 10,90,260/- have denied of modvat credit claim by the assessee under Rule 57Q for the Central Excise Rules, items are as under.
Sr. No. Items 1. 1 Caser/Uncaser (Material handling equipment) 2. Crate Washer 3. Wrapping Machine 4. Line Lubricating System (Accessory to Can Line Machine) 5. Spares for Botting Machinery 6. Line Can Dryer (Accessory to Can Line Machinery) 7. Fly Wheel 8. Valves for Crate Washer (Component of crate washer) 9. Chilled Water Coil Motor.
The Ld. Counsel Shri R. Nambirajan appearing on behalf of the state that the lower authority have denied modvat credit, on the basis of the wrong interpretation given to the provision of Rule 57Q and explanation (a) to (e) of the said rule. He also invited our attention to the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Surya Roshni Ltd. [2001 (128) ELT 293 (Tri.-LB) wherein paragraph 7 of the judgement the Tribunal had held that the various items which were included under clauses (d) and (e), if satisfied any one of the three conditions prior to 16.3.95, they would have been entitled to the modvat credit. The Tribunal went on to hold that by the said specific inclusion in the notification, which came into force on 16.3.95, the various items included in clause (d) and (e) need not satisfy any of the above mentioned three conditions with effect from that date. He therefore states that the balance of connivance is in his appellants favour. Ld. DR Shri BK Choubey adopts the reasoning.
2. We have considered the submissions. The point at issued in our view, prima facie is covered by the decision of the Larger Bench referred to above. Hence we order waiver of predeposit and stay the recovery during the pendency of the appeals.