Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Madras Aluminium Ltd. on 28 September, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(150)ELT717(TRI-CHENNAI)
JUDGMENT
S.L. Peeran
1. These are Revenue appeals against order in Appeal No. 376 & 377/96 (CBE) dated 30.06.96.
2. The learned DR has filed a letter of the Additional Commissioner addressed to the SDR dated 6.9.2001 stating that they are restricting their appeal to only one appeal as the Commissioner has accepted the order in Appeal No. 376/96(CBE) and the issue which is required to be determined in the present appeal is with regard to eligibility to Modvat Credit on the item Spares for Pumps/motors. The Commissioner (Appeals) has granted the benefit of capital goods under Rule 57S by applying the ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Rajasthan State Chemical Works reported in 1991 (55) ELT 444. The Revenue is aggrieved with this order and contends that the Supreme Court judgment is distinguishable as it was not in the context of eligibility to Modvat Credit in respect of spares for motor and therefore, the benefit cannot be extended to the item as it has no relevance to the explanation in (d) (i) to (x) of the explanation attached to Rule 57Q. The item at best can be termed as material handling equipment and the goods do not fall within the definition of capital goods in the explanation to the Rule 57Q.
3. Shri M. Muthu, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that these points have been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Three M Paper Mfg. Pvt. Ltd. Reported in 1999 (113) ELT 226(T) wherein it is held that these are essential for the purpose of manufacture of paper as paper pulp itself cannot be processed or changed to paper unless it is transported by the pumps in question from stage to stage in the assessee's plant. He also relied upon the judgment in the case of Indian Seamiess Steels & Alloys Lte. v. CCE reported in 1999(113) ELT 222 (T) on the same issue. Further he also relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, v. Punjab Chem & Pharm Ltd. Reported in 2000 (116) ELT 461. He submits that the issue is no longer res integra and the appeal filed by the Revenue has no merits.
4. On consideration of the submissions made and on perusal of the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the Commissioner, and the Tribunal judgements, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the appeal of the Revenue as the issue stands settled by the judgements cited supra. Therefore, respectfully following these judgements, I uphold the impugned order and reject the Revenue Appeal.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)