Punjab-Haryana High Court
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Pioneer Agro Extracts Ltd on 1 July, 2008
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.E.A. No. 65 of 2008
DATE OF DECISION: JULY 01, 2008
Commissioner of Central Excise, Commissionerate,
Jalandhar (Headquarters at Chandigarh)
.....APPELLANT
Versus
M/s Pioneer Agro Extracts Ltd., Malkpur,
Pathankot
....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
---
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate,
for the appellant.
..
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
The revenue has filed this appeal against the order dated 9.10.2007 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the Appellate Tribunal') in Excise Appeal No.3442 of 2005-SM (BR), which was arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.281/CE/Chd/2005 dated 29.07.2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh. In his order dated 29.07.2005, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the benefit of modvat credit to the assessee on channel, angles, joints, squares, equal angles of iron and steel, which were used for installation of batch vessel while observing that those articles were essential parts of the plant and machinery and as such the modvat credits on these items are available. The contention of the revenue based upon the decision of the Tribunal in case of CCE, Indore vs. Narmada Sugar, 2003(155) ELT 362, that these items C.E.A. No. 65 of 2008 -2- were being used for construction of base to install the batch vessel, therefore, the benefit of modvat credit is not available, was not accepted while observing that the facts of the said decision were different as in that case the benefit was denied for the construction of beams used for construction of platform on which the machinery was installed. Before us, the similar contention has been raised by the learned counsel for the revenue.
After hearing the learned counsel for the revenue and going through the impugned order, we do not find any merit in this appeal as in our opinion no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. In our opinion, the Appellate Tribunal, while relying upon its decision in case of Bellary Steel & Alloys Ltd. vs. CCE, Belgaum, 2005(180) ELT 92 (Tri.Bang.), has rightly come to the conclusion that the aforesaid items/articles used for installation of batch vessel form an essential part of the plant and machinery, therefore, the benefit of modvat credit was rightly given to the assessee. It is not disputed before us that the use of channel, angles, joints, squares, equal angles of iron and steel was essential and necessary for the installation and functioning of batch vessel. The goods once brought in factory for use in the principal plant and machinery, which are directly used in manufacture of excisable articles, are the capital goods. Thus, no ground is made out for interference in this appeal.
Dismissed.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
July 01, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
vkg JUDGE