Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S Southern Iron & Steels Co. Ltd. on 10 August, 2001
ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (Judicial)
1. This is a Revenue appeal against the order in Appeal No.133/97 dt.1.4.97 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the item "Dust Catcher" housed in the assessees' blast furnace is eligible for Modvat credit as it is essential for the producing or processing of pig iron and has not individual function i.e. pollution control and so is covered by Rule 57 Q of the Central Excise Rules as Capital Goods. In this regard he has relied on the Tribunal decision rendered in the case of MM Forging Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 1996 (67) ECR 193 and also has noted that any process which helps in the production of final products, then the machine used for such process is also covered under the terms of Capital Goods. In this regard the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Rajasthan State Chemical Works as reported in 1991 (55) ELT 444 has been relied. He has also relied on the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of IFFCO reported in 1969 (86) 177 (SC) wherein the Pollution Control apparatus/devices used in a plant has been held to be treated as part and parcel of the manufacture of processing and producing the end product.
2. Appearing on behalf of the Revenue the Ld. DR submits that the Revenue is aggrieved with this order on the ground that the citations are distinguishable as the item in question does not perform the function of the Capital Goods under Rule 57 Q of the Central Excise Rules.
3. Heard ld. Dr also took as through the grounds of Appeal.
4. Ld. Counsel submits, besides the Apex Court judgment has since been followed by the Larger Bench in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 1998 (108) ELT 47 (LB-T) and has upheld the proposition required to be considered as capital goods. He submits that with regard to the present items, the Tribunal has upheld them to be Capital Goods in the case of Jay Pee Rewari Cements vs. CCE reported in 1997 (96) ELT 167. He further submits that this issue is no longer res integra and there is no merit in the appeal.
5. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner (Appeals) has examined the issue in depth in the light of the Apex Court judgment and also we notice that the issue is no longer res integra. The matter has been fully dismissed in the decision by the Larger Bench rendered in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. (supra). Further, the Tribunal in the case of Jay Pee Rewari Cement (supra) has held that the goods in question are capital goods. Therefore, we find no merit int eh appeal and hence we reject the same.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open court)