Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Commr. Of C.Ex. Chennai vs M/S. Dunlop India Ltd. on 18 June, 2001
ORDER
Shri S.L. Peeran
1. This is a Revenue appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 324/98 (M-II) dated 27.11.98 by which the Commissioner has held that the assessee is entitled to Modvat credit on lubricant oil/mobile oil in terms of CEGAT's judgment rendered in the case of Pragati Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 1996 (66) ECR 42. This is challenged on the grounds that as per the exclusive clause under Rule 57B (2) of CE Rules, Modvat credit is not allowable on lubricants and fuel additives. It is stated that amendment to Modvat Rules vide notification No. 46/96 dated 1.9.96 clause (v) of Sub Rule 2 to Rule 57B. This amendment does not have effect for period from July to September 97 and hence the order is not correct.
2. Ld. DR reiterates this grounds.
3. Respondents despite notices issued, are not present.
4. I have carefully considered the submission. I notice that this matter was referred to Larger Bench of the Tribunal presided over by Hon'ble President. The Larger Bench in the case of CCE Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd. as reported in 2000 (129) ELT 197 after due consideration of all the points including the point raised have held that Modvat credit on lubricating the machines and machineries used for manufacture of final products is essential for their working and integrally connected with manufacture. It is stated that the friction and resultant heat are also sure to cause damage to the machinery and therefore, Modvat credit is required to be extended. The aspect even pertaining to the notification have been dealt with the held that the judgment given in Pragati Paper Mills applies and is a correct order.
4. In view of this Larger Bench judgment, I do not find any merit in this appeal, hence the appeal is rejected.
(pronounced & dictated in open Court)