Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Rathi Ispat Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 28 October, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000(116)ELT50(TRI-DEL)
ORDER A.C.C. Unni, Member (J)
1. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. It is, however, seen from the record that the advocate for the appellants Shri Rajesh Chibber has requested for an adjournment on account of some bereavement in his family. Since the matter appears to be covered in favour of the appellant, the matter was taken up for hearing.
2. I have heard Shri S. Ramanathan, JDR and perused the appeal papers.
3. The dispute relates to admissibility for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q for the steel wire rods. By order-in-original the Assistant Commissioner had allowed Modvat credit on the said items following the decision of the Tribunal in C.C.E., Mumbai v. Nova Udyog reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 532. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) had by the impugned order denied credit on the above items holding that the said goods were received in the factory prior to 16-3-1995 and as per provisions of Rule 57Q (3) credit was not admissible to the said items before that date'. Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Modipon Fibres reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 674. Ld. JDR reiterates the findings in the impugned order.
4. I have considered the submissions and perused the records. I find from the Tribunal's decision in C.C.E. v. Nova Udyog (supra) the Tribunal had held that EOT cranes used for the movement of raw material will be eligible to be considered as capital goods under Rule 57Q, since the definition of the capital goods under Rule 57Q would include not only items which are bringing about change but also components and accessories which help or assist in the process of manufacture. Further, on a perusal of the decision of the Tribunal in C.C.E. v. Modipon Fibre Co., relied on by the Commissioner (Appeals), I find that the said decision has not considered the question of eligibility of material handling equipment of the type which is presently under dispute but on certain other items. The question that was examined under the Modipon Fibre case was whether items such as filter, spares for process control, grinding stone, etc. could be considered as machines, machinery, equipment etc. used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for manufacture of the final product. I find that the said decision of the Tribunal is distinguishable in the facts of the present case. Further, in the Larger Bench decision of the Jawahar Mills v. C.C.E. [1999 (108) E.L.T. 47], the entire issue has been considered at length and a view was taken that Explanation l(a) as it stood in 1994-95 and 1995-96, and has to be construed according to the language of the provisions as they stood at the relevant time. It was observed that the items which were recognised as eligible to capital goods covered by Notification No. 14/96 were items covered by Explanation l(a) and the Revenue's contention that they are not covered by heading mentioned in Notification No. 14/96 cannot be accepted. In Nova Udyog case, the Tribunal had already taken a view that EOT cranes used for movement of raw materials would be eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. Items presently under dispute namely, steel wire rope is also part of the equipment used for taking material from one place to other and would come within the category of material handling equipment of the type covered by the decision in Nova Udyog.
5. In the light of the above discussions, I find merit in this appeal and allow the same by holding that steel wires rope will be eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. The impugned order is set aside and the appellants would be eligible for consequential benefit, if any, under law.