Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
Sarita Steel And Industries Limited vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 2 June, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(172)ELT61(TRI-BANG)
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. The appellant is aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal No. 2/2003 (V-II)CE dated 18-2-2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Visakhapatnam in which he has held that Aluminium Conductors are not eligible for Modvat credit in view of the amendments brought under Rule 57Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules. The finding recorded by him in Paras 9 and 10 are extracted below :
"9. I have considered the appellants' plea. In Jawahar Mills case referred by the appellants, it was held that power cables qualify as capital goods under explanation (1) to Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules as it stood at the relevant time. It was held that wires and cables would be covered by the expression "Plant". Explanation 1(1) to Rules 57Q prior to 23-7-1996 was as under
(a) Machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances used for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final products.
Vide Notification 14/96-C.E. (N.T.), dated 23-7-1996, the entire explanation was changed. Specific heading and sub-heading have been mentioned. The condition of these goods being used for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final products has also been done away with. Thus any goods falling under these specified chapter headings and used in the factory are eligible for credit. This has been done to resolve the interpretational problems about the scope of Rule 57Q.
10. In the instant appeal, the eligibility of Aluminium Conductors has to be examined in the light of the definition of capital goods during the period 199-1998. The said goods are classified under chapter sub-heading 7614.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The goods under this chapter heading are not covered under SI. No. 1 to 4 of the table given under Rules 57Q(1). They also do not qualify as components, spares and accessories of the Rolling Mill, as contested by the appellants."
2. The appellants have requested that the matter be decided on merits.
3. We have heard learned SDR who points out that the Order given by the Commissioner is correct, legal and proper. He points out that the Explanation 1(a) to Rule 57Q was amended and Aluminium Conductors have not been specified in SI. Nos. 1 to 4 of the table given under Rule 57Q(1) and hence they are not qualified as components, spares and accessories of the Rolling Mill and hence the benefit cannot be extended, as rightly held by the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that there is no merit in the appeal the same is required to be rejected.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. The appellants have relied on a large number of judgments, which granted the benefit of the capital goods, but these judgments were prior to the amendment brought to Rule 57Q(1). After the amendment, the Aluminium Conductors fall under Chapter sub-heading 7614.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. The goods under this Chapter heading are not covered under SI. Nos. 1 to 4 of the table given under Rule 57Q(1) and hence do not qualify as components, spares and accessories of the Rolling Mill and hence the judgments rendered by the Tribunal prior to the date of amendment are not applicable. The order passed by the Commissioner is legal and proper and hence, the same is confirmed. There is no merit in the appeal and hence it is rejected.