Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Finolex Industries Limited vs Commissioner Of Customs & Central ... on 31 May, 2001
ORDER
1. The appeal is taken up for disposal with consent of both sides after waiving deposit.
2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the denial by the Assistant Commissioner of the modvat credit taken by the appellant on the ground that the inputs were used in its effluent plant, which was situated in its jetty, away from the manufacturing facilities for production poly vinyl chloride resin. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that the effluent treatment plant is within the bounds of factory. The two plans produced by the appellant - one illustrating the lay out of the factory, its complex and the jetty, and the other showing details of the structure within the factory shows, prima facie, that the effluent treatment plan which is situated more or less adjacent to the poly vinyl chloride production plant maximum across the six metre wide road quite a distance away from the jetty. The Commissioner (Appeals) has noted one of the submissions that the appellant made before him that the effluent treatment plant was within the factory. This is what is contained in grounds 9.2 and 9.4 of the appeal and must have been raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) since he says that the appellant's representative reiterated the submissions in the appeal. He has, however, not dealt with this. This matter is now required to be verified with certainty whether the effluent treatment plant is located within the factory premises or not.
3. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside. Counsel for the appellant undertakes to produce such evidence in the form of proper certified plan within a month from the receipt of this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) shall after considering such submission, and, if he consider it necessary verify further and pass orders in accordance with law.