Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Cce on 13 December, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2005(101)ECC21
ORDER K.C. Mamgain, Member (T)
1. These three stay applications were represented by Shri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, who pleaded that in the first case, the demand is of Rs. 58,696 on account of H.R. Coils and Galvanized plates on which credit was taken as capital goods. He pleaded that in several decisions, the Tribunal has taken a view that H.R. coils and Galvanized Plates are capital goods. He said that even though H.R. Coils and Galvanized plates are not part of any capital goods but had been used in relation to manufacture of final products, therefore, credit cannot be denied to them. The second stay application is for staying the denial of credit of Rs. 1,65,415 to the appellants on a 6.3 MVA 2.2/37.5 - 33.9 kVA Copper Wound Generation TIF with OLTC. He pleaded that this an accessory to the generating set to boost the capacity of the generating set. He pointed out that they have not produced any literature about this product before any authority and requested for time for production of the same. The third stay application is for staying denial of credit of Rs. 1,65,990 on iron and steel articles and black steel tubes on the ground that in the declaration there (sic, these) were described only as capital goods and, therefore, from this, it cannot be known whether these are parts of any capital goods. He pleaded that in defence reply to show cause and before the Commissioner (Appeals) they have explained that these are capital goods being used as parts of various machineries.
2. Shri Bipin Verma, Ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue pleaded that in the first case, the H.R. Coils and Galvanized plates, cannot be said to be capital goods as these are not covered under the definition of 'capital goods'. In the second case, he pleaded that in absence of any literature, it cannot be accepted that these are goods which are parts or accessories of generating set and in third case, he pleaded that in the absence of any proper description, it cannot be held that iron and steel items and black steel tubes are parts of any machinery. He also pleaded that these items have been used as construction material supporting the shade which store the goods and cannot be said to be used in the manufacture of final products and cannot be said as parts of machinery. He pleaded that the appellants may be asked to pre-deposit the entire amount.
3. On careful consideration, I find that the matter is arguable. Therefore, the appellants are directed to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs within a period of 8 weeks from today and report compliance by 23.2.2005. If they fail to comply with the above terms, their appeals shall be liable to be dismissed under Section 35F of the Act.