Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Panchmahal Steel Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 14 September, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(140)ELT397(TRI-MUMBAI)
JUDGMENT
J.H. Joglekar, Member(T)
1. When the stay application was called out, Shri Mayur Shroff submitted that the assesses had already deposited the disputed duty but submitted that the issue being settled, the appeal could be decided. This was done after hearing Shri T.d. Bodade Ld. DR
2. Denial of modvat credit was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) on three items. Carbon Tetra Chloride was not accepted as an input because it was used for cleaning of machinery components. Such cleaning material for such purposes was held as eligible input vide Tribunal's decision reproduced in [2000 (116) ELT 635].
3. Steel Strips were used for packing finished goods seal kits were used for sealing pack bundles. The Dy. Commissioner denied the modvat credit on these goods holding that these were packing materials and not capital goods under Rule 57Q. This was upheld by the Commissioner. It is correct that these goods would be input under Rule 57A more appropriately than under Rule 57Q. A similar situation was faced by the Tribunal in the case of the same appellants (Order No. C-I/2087-2112/WZB/2001. dt.3.8.2001). The Tribunal following the law laid down in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Merrut-I v. Modi Rubber Ltd. [2000 (119) ELT 197 (Tribunal-LB)] had held that a declaration filed under Rule 57Q was sufficient to enable credit to be taken under Rule 57A also. In terms of this law, benefit is available to the packing strips and the sealing.
4. In the result, the appeal stands allowed.
(Pronounced in Court)