Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Cce vs A.G. Industries Pvt. Ltd. on 14 March, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(191)ELT704(TRI-DEL)
ORDER K.C. Mamgain, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides.
2. In this appeal, the Revenue is challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the credit on parts and accessories of moulds and dies falling under sub-heading 8480.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act on the ground that under Rule 57Q in the table the moulds and dies are mentioned at serial No. 6 and there is no provision for allowing credit on parts and accessories of the moulds and dies.
2. Shri S.S. Bhatnagar, learned JDR relied on the findings of the Original Authority wherein he held "that parts and accessories do not find any place in serial No. 2 of the list appended to Rule 57Q of the Rules.
3. Shri R.C. Choudhary, learned Consultant on the contrary pleaded that moulds and dies on which the credit was taken by them are covered under heading 8480.10 and these are covered by serial No. 2 of the table under Rule 57Q. Serial No. 5 of the table allows credit on components, spares and accessories of the goods specified against serial Nos. 1 to 4. Since the goods viz., moulds and ides used by them fall under serial No. 2, therefore, they are eligible for credit on parts and accessories of such moulds and dies. He also relied on the decision in the case of Grindwell Norton Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai reported in 2004 (178) ELT 409 : 2003 (111) ECR 682 (T) wherein it was held that "on a careful examination of the table to Rule 57Q it is clear that all goods falling under Chapter 84 are covered by S. No. 2 of the table. Moulds fall under 84.80 and would be covered by S. No. 2. Components, spares and accessories of S. No. 2, are covered by S. No. 5, while moulds and dies are again specified and covered under S. No. 6. Therefore, accessories/components of moulds are eligible capital goods. Since serial No. 5 covers components, accessories of the goods at S. Nos. 1 to 4 irrespective of classification in the Tariff, the findings of the Commissioner that steel strips and aluminium ingots are not specified tariff, cannot be upheld."
4. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has given the following findings:
The appellant has submitted that the moulds and dies used by them fall under, chapter sub-heading 8480.10 of the Central Excise Tariff. The parts and accessories of the moulds and dies are falling under different sub-heading as mentioned in the impugned order, There is no doubt that there is a specific mentioned of mould and dies as eligible capital goods at Sl. No. 6 of the table below Rule 57Q without mentioning any classification of these moulds and dies. It only leads to the interpretation that all types of moulds and dies whether falling under chapter heading 84 or any other chapter are eligible capital goods for the purpose of modvat credit as per Sl. No. 6 of the table. At the same tie, the moulds and dies used by the appellant are also covered at Sl. No. 2 of the table by virtue of its classification under chapter 84 since sub-heading 8480.10 is not excluded from the scope of Sl. No. 2. The parts of goods falling under Chapter 84 are covered at Sl. No. 5 of the above mentioned table. Since the moulds and dies used by the appellants are classified under Chapter 84, therefore, the same are equally covered under Sl. No. 2 and Sl. No. 6 of the table.... Thus, I hold that the parts and accessories of moulds of sub-heading 8480.10 used by the appellants are eligible to be covered under Sl. No. 5 of the table Rule 57Q as discussed.
I find that the reasons given by the Commissioner (Appeals) are correct in law and these are duly supported by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Grindwell Norton Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai (supra). In view of this, there is no merits in the appeal filed by the Revenue. The same is accordingly, rejected.
(Pronounced and dictated in open Court).