Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Commr. Of C. Ex. vs Uttam Industrial Engg. (P) Ltd. on 11 February, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(92)ELT130(TRI-DEL)
ORDER G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. This Reference application is filed by the department on the ground that the point of law arises from the order of the Tribunal as per order No. A/1687/96-NB dated 2-7-1996 requiring the following point of law to be referred to the High Court for its considered opinion :
"Whether Modvat credit under Rule 57Q can be allowed on the goods, i.e., EOT cranes covered by the definition of the capital goods as provided under explanation (1)(a) to (1)(e) of Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 at the relevant period."
2. Arguing for the applicants Shri Ram Saran, JDR submitted that as EOT cranes are used for shifting and handling of raw materials and finished goods in the factory, it is neither covered within the ambit of Clause (1)(a) and (1)(b) as it is not used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final products nor this is covered under Clause (1)(c) as this clause covers only specific items namely moulds, dies, generating set and weigh bridges.
3. Ms. Reena Khair, ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the Tribunal has been consistently taking the view that Modvat on capital goods not confined to items which bring about change but also available to components and accessories which help or assist in the process of manufacture. In support of her contention, she referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Nova Udyog Ltd. reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 532 wherein it was held that EOT cranes used for movement of raw materials fall within the definition of capital goods and they are eligible for Modvat credit. Reliance has also been placed by her on the case of CCE v. M.M. Forgings Ltd. reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 617.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides with reference to the Reference application. In the cases referred to above, the Tribunal has taken the view that in view of the wider meaning and enlarged definition of the capital goods as can he seen from the explanation, it is clear that not only machines which bring about any change but also components and accessories of the machines used for the above purpose are capital goods. In view of the wider wordings it is clear that items such as electric wires and cables, EOT cranes are capital goods as covered under Rule 57Q. Since these items are not specifically excluded and in view of the consistent view of the Tribunal, I am not convinced that any question of law arises to be referred to the High Court. In the view I have taken, the Reference application filed by the department is hereby rejected.