Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Rajasthan Cylinders & Containers ... vs C.C.E., Jaipur on 28 May, 2001
ORDER
S.S. Kang
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of MODVAT credit in respect of steel tubes and pipes was denied to the appellants.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of LPG Cylinders and they availed the benefit of MODVAT credit on steel tubes and pipes under Rule 57 Q of the rules. The benefit was denied by the adjudicating as well as the appellate authorities.
3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that steel pipes and tubes are included in the definition of capital goods w.e.f. 23.7.96 by virtue of notification 14/96. He submits that the period in dispute is prior to this notification. He submits that pipes and tubes are used in the plants. Therefore, these are parts of plants and hence are entitled for the benefit of MODVAT Credit.
4. Ld. D.R. relies upon the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Surya Roshni Ltd. vs C.C.E. reported in 2001 (128) E.L.T. 293 and submits that in this case the Tribunal held that notifications issued in respect of capital goods are prospective in nature and before issuance of these notifications, the goods in question, are to qualify three tests as laid down in Rule 57 Q of the Rules.
5. Heard both sides.
6. In this case, the issue is in respect of MODVAT Credit on capital goods, i.e. pipes and tubes used in the manufacture of LPG cylinders. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Surya Roshni Ltd. (supra) held that notifications issued in respect of capital goods are prospective in nature. In the present case, steel pipes and tubes were not particularly included in the definition of capital goods before the notification . The Larger Bench of the Tribunal, further, held that for availing the benefit of credit as capital goods, the goods, in question, have to qualify on of the three conditions as per the requirement of Rule 57 Q of the rules. In the present case, there is no finding given by the lower authorities in respect of requirement of rule 57 Q as interpreted by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication, The adjudicating authority will decide the issue afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. The appeal is disposed of by way of remands.
(Dictated in Court)