Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Chandigarh, Cce vs M/S. Jct Electronics on 3 May, 2001
ORDER
P.S. Bajaj
1. This order will dispose of six appeals filed by the Revenue bearing Nos. E/690, 723, 722, 653, 1057 & 908/99-NB against different impunea order dated 18.12.98 (Appeal No. E/690/99-NB), dated 24.12.98 (E/723/99-NB), dated 22.12.98 (Appeal No. E/722/99-NB), dated 16.12.98 (Appeal No. E/653/99-NB), dated 4.2.99 (Appeal No. E/1057/99-NB) and dated 13.1.99 (Appeal No. E/908/99-NB) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had allowed the modvat credit on the goods in dispute by holding the same to be 'capital goods', to the respondents.
2. It has been submitted by both the sides that the question as to whether the disputed goods fall within the ambit of 'capital goods' or not deserves to be re-examined by the adjudicating authority in the light of the latest Larger Bench decision in CCE Indore Vs. Surya Roshini, 20001(42) RLT 817(LB). We have also gone through the impugned order and the record and in our view the submission of both the sides deserves to be accepted. The decision of the larger Bench in the above cited case was not available to the Commissioner (Appeals) when he passed the impugned order. The question, whether the disputed goods satisfy the definition of 'capital goods' requires to be re-examined by the adjudicating authority in the light of above said decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal.
3. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) are set aside and the matter is sent back to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision in the light of the observations made above. However, the adjudicating authority will also take into consideration the other law on the point which may be cited before him by both the sides. He will decide the matter after affording opportunity of hearing to them.
Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.