Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Cce, Jaipur vs Shree Raj Texchem Ltd. on 19 April, 2001
ORDER
K.K. Bhatia
1. The respondent manufacture of yarn of man made fibres filling Chapter 55. They availed modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 10.06.140.40 on certain capital goods under Rule 57Q. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Division initiated proceedings against them and on hearing their case passed on order dated 2.2.98 in which he disallowed the modvat credit of the aforesaid amount to them, apart from imposing a penalty of Rs.10,000/-
2. The party filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur vide his order dated 29.9.99 allowed the modvat credit totally amounting to Rs.9,95,610.60 in respect of the following capital goods.
"(i) Resign Bonded Fibre Glass insulation, (ii) Electric motor, (iii) Tensor socket, (iv) Plug Fuse, (v) Contractor, (vi) Switches, (vii)Time Diodes, (viii) Light Lamp, (ix)Condnser Assembly, (x) PVC Cables, (xi)MOCB 33 KV, (xi)MOCB 33 KV, (xii) Fuse insulator & switch and (xiii) High production cot grinding machine".
3. The Revenue are in appeal against the above order of Commissioner (Appeals). They are agitating the matter in respect of the following items for which the modvat credit has been allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the respondents.
i) Tensor Socket, plug Fuse, Rs. 5076.00
pilot Lamp
ii) Switch Relay, Contact Sensor, Fuse, Rs. 14364.00
Elements, Socket Wire
iii) Electrical Cap, Contractor, Switch Rs. 18206.00
Timer Diodes, Relay, Light Lamp
Condensor Assembly
iv) PVC Cables Rs. 687847.00
v) MOCB 33 KV Rs. 21693.00
vi) Fuse Insulator and Switch Rs. 4600.00
-------------
Total Rs. 7,51,786.00
4. I have heard Sh. Swatantra Kumar, JDR for the Revenue. The respondents are not represented. Sh. Apurva Bhattacharya, Advocate however, has sent a Fax Message dated 17.4.2001 in which it is stated that it is a fit case for granting an adjournment since the matter has been heard by the Larger Bench and the decision is awaited. It is further stated that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jawahar mills Ltd. on the point of admissibility of modvat credit on various capital goods may also be awaited. This communication of the ld. Advocate cannot be countenanced for two reasons. Firstly, the ld. Advocate claiming to represent the appellants has not filed any Vakalatnama from them and secondly, the stated decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal is already been given and also reported. In this view of the matter, it is not considered necessary to await the decision of the Apex Court on the subject. I, therefore, proceed to decide the case on hearing Sh. S.Kumar, JDR for the Revenue. I have considered the submissions made before me. It is observed that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal is the case of CCE, Indore, Vs. Surya Roshni reported in 2001 (128) ELT 293 (T-LB) have laid down detailed guidelines with regard to the admissibility of the modvat credit on various items, components and spares etc. as capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Siva Industries Vs. CCE, Coimbatore [2001 (129) ELT 148 (M)] have also pronounced in detail on the subject in their judgment. Under the circumstances, it is felt that the matter should be considered de novo by the original authority keeping in view of the ratio of the above cited decisions. Accordingly, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority for passing a de novo order keeping in view the directions contained in the above cited decisions. The respondents shall be provided a reasonable opportunity of hearing before taking the final view in the matter.
5. The Revenue appeal is thus allowed by remand in the above terms.
6. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)