Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Ici India Limited vs Cce, Bhopal on 18 May, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. IV DATE OF HEARING : 03/05/2016. DATE OF DECISION : 18/05/2016. Excise Appeal No. 3920 of 2005 (SM) [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 314-CE/BPL/2004 dated 29/09/2004 passed by The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bhopal.] For Approval and signature : Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of : the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair : copy of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the : Department Authorities? M/s ICI India Limited Appellant Versus CCE, Bhopal Respondent
Appearance Shri Rahul Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri G.R. Singh, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 51804/2016 Dated : 18/05/2016 Per. B. Ravichandran :-
The dispute involved in the present appeal is the eligibility of the appellant for Modvat credit of duty paid on capital goods under the then Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of bulk explosives liable to Central Excise duty. Different raw materials as also semi-finished goods are carried in compartmentalized bulk delivery pump truck to the designated bore hole site. There with the help of the pump, ingredients are delivered to the bore hole where the bulk explosives are manufactured. The appellants claimed credit of duty paid on various items like the special purpose motor vehicle, drivers cabin, hydraulic power point, chassis with the engine etc. under the category of capital goods. The appellants claimed that the special delivery truck is essentially a mobile plant/factory without which production/ delivery of their finished goods cannot take place. As such they claimed that credit is eligible on all these items as capital goods within the meaning of Explanation to Rule 57Q (1) (a). Proceedings were initiated to deny the credit to the appellant. The Original Authority vide his order dated 9/12/1996 held that the appellants are not eligible for credit. On appeal, the Commissioner vide the impugned order dated 04/10/2004 upheld the original order. The lower Authorities in their concurrent finding held that the special purpose motor vehicle/mobile bulk delivery pump is merely providing transportation of the ingredients from the factory to mining area and as such cannot be considered as a factory in terms of Section 2 (e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) followed the Tribunals decision in the appellants own case.
2. I have heard both the sides. I find that an identical matter came up for decision by the Tribunal in respect of the same appellant. The Tribunal in the decision reported in 1998 (102) E.L.T. 640 (Tribunal) held that the concept of mobile factory is alien to the Central Excise Act, 1944 and no Modvat credit will be available to these items. Following the same ratio, I find that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 18/05/2016.) (B. Ravichandran) Member (Technical) PK ??
??
??
??
3