Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. on 20 April, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(76)ECC291
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. Both the appeals of the Revenue and that of the Assessee arise from common order in appeal No. 211/98 (CBE) dt. 24.12.1998 and hence they are taken up together for disposal by the common order as per law.
E/601/99/MAS The assessee is aggrieved with the rejection of the Motor credit for the seal rings, inserts and packing which were used to arrest leaks in pumps and other equipments. On this issue the Ld. Counsel seeks for setting aside the impugned order as it is to be considered as capital goods and the same is covered by the judgement rendered in the case of CCE, Chennai v. Tamil Nadu Petro Products Ltd. reported in 2000 (126) ELT 1048 (T). The Ld. Counsel submits that this issue is no longer res integra.
2. We have heard both the sides and perused the records. On a careful consideration and examination of the citation the decision rendered in the case of CCE v. Tamil Nadu Petro Products Ltd. (supra) directly covering the items in question and therefore, there is no merit in the Revenue's argument. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.
3. While arguing on behalf of the Revenue, the Ld. DR submits that the items under challenge are not capital goods and the judgment relied by the Commissioner is distinguishable. The Revenue has not accepted the said order and it has gone in appeal in Jawahar Mills case before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
4. On a careful consideration, I notice that the judgment cited by the Ld. Counsel in respect of seal rings, inserts and packing directly covered to this appeal also. The issue has also settled by the Larger Bench decision in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. reported in 1999 (108) ELT 47 (T) and further submitted by another Larger Bench in the case of CCE, Indore v. Surya Roshini Ltd. . The issue is also covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Tamil Nadu Petro Products Ltd. (supra). Respectfully following the ratio of the cited judgments in respect of these items, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
E/519/99/MAS
5. The Revenue appeal is against allowing of Modvat credit in respect of the items noted below:
_____________________________________________________________ SI. Disputed goods Case law cited No. by the assessee _____________________________________________________________
1. Piples and pipe fittings
(a) Non-metallic expression Joint with sleeve 1. Siel Sugars 1998 (99) ELT 54
2. CCE, Patna v. Bihar Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.
2000 (118) ELT 1048.
(b) Dual pipe assembly same as above
(d) Flanges Siel Sugars 1998 (99)
ELT 54 (T)
2. Ethylene Compressor JCT Electronics 2000
(124) ELT 541
3. Process Control Instrument Siel Sugars
1998 (99)ELT 54
4. Excess flow valves JCT Electronics v. CCE,
Chandigarh 2000 (124) ELT
541
_____________________________________________________________
6. The Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue submits that all the above items should not get Modvat credit as they are capital goods and the Commissioner's order granting Modvat Credit on those items is not justified. He refers to the grounds of appeal.
7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that each of the item is covered by judgment of the Tribunal. He cites the following judgments.
Siel Sugars
2. CCE, Patna v. Bihar Caustic & Chemicals Ltd. 2000 (118) ELT 1048
3. JCT Electronics 2000 (124) ELT 541 (T)
8. I have carefully considered the issue and notice that the Revenue is not justified in filing the appeal against the above items as the issue is no longer res integra and the Tribunal has considered the case in respect of the very items and held them to be capital goods. Once the Tribunal has clearly held them to be capital goods then the ratio is required to be applied. Further clarification has been given in Larger Bench decision in the case of Jawahar Mills (supra) and Surya Roshini Ltd. (supra). The issue being covered by all the judgments therefore the ratio is required to be applied in terms of judicial discipline. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the Revenue Appeal and the same is rejected.