Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
C.C.E., Delhi vs M/S. Quality Foils (India) Ltd. on 16 April, 2001
ORDER K.K. Bhatia, Member (T)
1. The respondents manufacturer "Cold Rolled strips of stainless steel" falling under Chapter 72. They availed modvat credit amounting to Rs. 19,060/- on Power Factor Correction Panes and Electrical Control Panel with pandant box under Rule 57-Q. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak vide his Order dt. 24.4.96 denied them the modvat credit on these items on the ground that these are not covered in the definition of the 'capital goods'; that these items do not bring about any change in the production of final product and cannot come under the ambit of capital goods as per explanation given under clause (1) (a) to (d) under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. He further imposed a penalty of Rs.500/- on them.
2. An appeal was filed by the party. The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi vide his Order dt. 29.9.2000 allowed the appeal of the party on the ground that the modvat credit is admissible in respect the "capacitors".
3. The Revenue are in appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri S. Kumar, JDR for the appellants and Shri R. Pal Singh, Consultant for the respondents. I have considered the submissions made by both the sided. It is observed that the function of the items in the manufacturing process undertaken by the respondents is not clearly brought out either in order of the Original Authority or that the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) on the contrary appears to have completely missed the point, since, he has in his order stated that the modvat credit of duty is admissible in respect of the capacitors which was not even an item for consideration before him. I am therefore, of the view that the matter would call for de-novo consideration at the level of the Original Authority. Accordingly, order passed by the Commissioner (Appels) is set aside and the matter remanded to the Original Authority for denovo consideration in light of the following decisions:
(i) C.C.E., Indore vs. Surya Roshni Ltd. - 2001 (42) RLT 817 (CEGAT-L.B), and
(ii) M/s. SIV Industries Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Coimbatore - 2001 (129) ELT 148 (Mad.)
4. The respondents shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing before taking a final view in the matter.
5. The appeal is thus allowed by remand in the above terms.
(Announced and dictated in the Court)