Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
Kesoram Cement vs Cce on 7 June, 2005
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. The appellants are challenging the Order-in-Appeal No 3/2004 dated 12.01.2004 allowing the Revenue's appeal. The Order-in-Original No 40/2000 dated 22.08.2000 passed by the Deputy Commissioner granted the benefit of Modvat Credit in respect of plain plates and HR sheets which were used as components, spares and accessories along with main machinery. They were used for the manufacture of structure, ducts, chutes, and structural support for various machineries and for conveying the process material from one process to another. The Deputy Commissioner after a detailed examination held that they are parts of main machinery and are covered by Board Circular No 276/110/96-TRU dated 02.12.1996 which clarifies that all parts, components, accessories which are used with capital goods are entitled to benefit of Modvat credit. The learned Consultant relied on a large number of Tribunal rulings and submits that the issue is covered by these judgments in his favour. The following judgments are cited:-
(i) New J.K. Cement Works v. Collector - 1999 (113) ELT 428 (T)
(ii) Remi Metals Gujarat Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara - 2001 (136) ELT 1079 (T)
(iii) Global Sugar Ltd., v. CCE, Kanpur - 2000 (39) RLT 850 (CEGAT)
(iv) Adarsh Industries v. CCE, Mumbai-VII - 2002 (147) ELT 407 (Tri.-Mumbai)
(v) Viswkarma Refractories Ltd. v. CCE - 2002 (148) ELT 122 (Tri. Ban.)
(vi) Simbholi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CCE - 2001 (135) ELT 1239 (T), [Confirmed by the Apex Court - 2002 (139) ELT A294 (SC)]
(vii) Hindustan Sanitary Ware Industries Ltd. v. CCE Hyderabad - Final Order No. 1198/2001 dt 24.7.2001.
(viii) Madras Aluminium Company Ltd. v. CCE - 2001 (136) ELT 182 (Tri)
(ix) Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. CCE - 2003 (106) ECR 431 (Tri.)
(x) Search Chem Industries Ltd. v. CCE - 2000 (118) ELT 608 (T)
(xi) Varalakshmi Sugars Ltd. v. CCE - 2001 (137) ELT 96 (Tri.-Chennai)
(xii) Navabharat Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. CCE - 2004 (61) RLT 68 (CESTAT-Ban.)
(xiii) CCE, Trichi v. India Cements and vice Versa - 2004 (64) RLT 63 (CESTAT-Che.)
(xiv) United Phosphorous Ltd. v. CCE Vadodara - 2002 (150) ELT 650 (Tri.-Mum.)
(xv) Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. CCE - 2001 (45) RLT 739 (SC) (xvi) Lloyds Metals & Engineers Ltd. v. Addl. CCE - 2003 (59) RLT 342 (CESTAT-Mum.)
4. The learned SDR submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the Tribunal ruling rendered in the case of Rosa Sugar Works v. CCE, Kanpur [1999 (144) ELT 950 (T)] and in case of Nava Karnataka Steels Ltd. v. CCE, Belgaum [2000 (123) ELT 913 (T)]. He submits that the impugned order has to be confirmed.
5. On a careful consideration, I notice that in the cases of Rosa Sugar Works v. CCE, Kanpur (supra) and Nava Karnataka Steels Ltd. v. CCE, Belgaum (supra), the Tribunal after due consideration found that the plain plates, HR sheets are only in the nature of structural or constructions materials used for fabrication/structural purposes and are not covered by the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the present case, the Deputy Commissioner has given clear finding that the items in the matter are used as parts of machinery and are used for conveying the process materials from one process to another. He has clearly noted that they are covered by above stated Board's Circular. Therefore, the judgments cited by the learned Consultant are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, wherein it was held that steel items used for the manufacture of structural supports for various machineries are eligible for the benefit of Modvat credit. Following the ratio of the judgments cited by the learned Consultant, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.