Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Jawahar Mills Ltd And M/S. Saroja ... on 8 May, 2001
ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (Judicial)
1. In both these Revenue Appeals common question of law and facts being involved, we take up both the appeals together for disposal as per law.
2. In both the appeals the issue that arises for consideration is whether the machinery in question can be considered as capital goods. The Commissioner in both the appeals has held that cotton carded/combed machines fall under chapter sub heading 5205.00 CETA. They manufacture not only exempted items viz. cotton yarn but also bring into existence other product and hence they are to be treated as capital goods. The Revenue contends in both the appeals that only exempted products are manufactures and such machineries do not come with the ambit of "Capital Goods" in terms of the sub heading 5205.00.
3. Arguing on behalf of the Revenue, the Ld.SDR points out that similar appeals have been remanded by the Tribunal for to consideration in the light of the decision rendered in the case of CCE, Madurai vs. Thuran Spinning Mills reported in 2000(117) ELT 699 (T). There is also a direction to reconsider the matter in the light of the decision rendered in the Larger Bench in the case of Jawhar Mills Ltd. reported in 1999 (108) ELT 47 (LB-T) and that another Larger Bench rendered its decision in the case of CCE Vs. Suriya Roshini Ltd. reported in 2001 (128) ELT 293 (T). The Ld. SDR files copy of the final order of this Bench in the case of CCE. Coimbatore vs. Sambandam Spinning Mills Ltd. & others vide final order No.335 - 341/2001 dt.27.2.2001 by which similar cases have been remanded for de novo consideration with the direction to the authorities to re-consider the material on record the and also the decision rendered by he Tribunal in the said final order.
4. Arguing for the Respondents, the Ld. Counsel also contends that he had appeared in the case of Sambandam Spinning Mills Ltd in which the Bench was pleased to remand the case for denovo consideration. He further submits in the case of Jawahar Mills, the period involved is December 94 during which period the same item has been granted benefit by issue of Notification and incorporating the same in terms of Rule 57 Q. He further submits that this aspect has not been examined and there can be direction to the original authorities to reconsider the matter pertaining to Jawahar Mills in the light of the submission made by him.
5. We have heard both the side. After careful consideration, we find that there is lot of force in the (sic) submissions made by Ld. SDR as well as by Ld. Counsel. All similar matters have already been remanded with the direction to reconsider the issue afresh in the light of the Larger Bench decision. The Bench has also remanded these cases by following the decision in the case of CCE. VS. Sambandam Spinning Mills vide final order No.335-341/2001 dt.24.2.2001 to the lower authority. Hence this matter is also remanded for de novo consideration. The lower authority shall grant rehearing to the appellants and reconsider afresh for grant of Modvat credit on capital goods in the light of the decision cited above. The plea taken by the Counsel in the Jawahar Mills Ltd. the rules are already covered by amended rule 57 Q should also be re-examined by the Revenue Authorities. The Revenue Authorities shall follow the principle of natural justice while deciding the matter afresh. Both the appeals are remanded for de novo consideration.
(order dictated and pronounced in the open court)