Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
C.C.E., Meerut vs M/S. Samtel Colour Ltd. on 25 April, 2001
ORDER
P.S. Bajaj
1. Today, the appeal is posted for mention only as the decision of the Larger Bench in C.C.E., Indore versus Surya Roshni Ltd., on Capital goods was awaited. But that decision has been anounced and reported. Both the sides have submitted the appeal may be decided on the basis of the Larger Bench decision, on Capita goods.
2. In this appeal, the appellants have questioned the validity of the impugned order of the Commissioner(appeals) vide which he had allowed the modvat credit only on some and not on all, the goods, under rule 57-Q of the Rules, by modifying the Order-in-original of the Assistant Commissioner who disallowed the modvat credit on all the goods in question and imposed penalty of Rs.20,000/- on the appellants. The goods on which the modvat credit has been sought by the appellants by projecting as Capital goods and disallowed by the Commissioner(appeals) had been detailed in the impunged order. It has been fairly conceded by both the sides that whether these disputed goods fall within the category of Capital goods under rule 57-Q read with explanation-1 appended there to, has to be determined in the light of the ratio of law laid down by the Larger Bench in C.C.E., Indore Versus Surya Roshni Ltd., reported in 2001(42) RLT-817 (CEGAT-L.B.). This decision of the Larger Bench was not before the Commissioner (appeals) when he passed the impugned order having been pronounced lateron. Therefore, as prayed by both the sides, the impugned order of the Commissioner(appeals) is set aside and the matter is sent back to the Adjudicating Authority for deciding the issue regarding availability of the modvat credit to the appellants on the disputed goods under rule 57-Q read with Explanation-1, afresh in the light of the observations made above, after hearing both sides.
3. The appeal of the Revenue, accordingly, stands allowed by way of remand.
4. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT.