Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. A.C.C. Ltd. vs C.C.E. Bhopal on 12 October, 2000
ORDER K.K. Bhatia, Member (T)
1. The appellants manufacture Portland Slag Cement falling under Chapter sub-heading 2502.29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are also availing modvat credit on capital goods under Rule 570 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. During the months of August, 1996, October, 96, November, 96 and January, 97, they availed modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 3,93,360/- under Rule 570 on the Grinding Media Balls and on Hi-chrome Cylpebs respectively. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-II, Bhilai vide his order dt. 10.10.97 denied them the modvat credit and confirmed a demand of the aforestated amount on them under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11-A of Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. The party filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal vide his order dt. 14.10.99 upheld the order of the original authority by rejecting the appeal of the party for the modvat credit on the grinding media but allowed the appeal for credit on Cylpebs.
3. The present appeal is against the above order of Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants have also filed a Miscellaneous Petition for making certain modifications in their appeal. However, during the course of hearing, the same was withdrawn by Shri A.N. Haksar, Sr. Advocate appearing for the appellants. I have heard Shri A.N. Haksar, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri R.C. Pandey, Advocate for the appellant and Shri M.D. Singh, SDR for the Respondent. The ld. Sr. Counsel for the appellants is relying on the following decisions of the Tribunal in which the modvat credit is held to be admissible on the grinding media -
(i) Century Cements vs. CCE - 1997 (95) ELT 69 (T) &
(ii) CCE vs. New Vikram Cement Mills - 1995 (95) ELT 98(C).
4. In the above two decisions, the modvat credit on the Grinding Media Balls and Cylpebs is held to be admissible under Rule 57A used in or in relation to the manufacture of Cement. The only difference is that the appellants in the present case claimed the modvat credit on these items as capital goods under Rule 57Q whereas the same is available on these items as input under Rule 57A. I have considered the submission made before me. In my view, admissibility of the modvat credit on the impugned items under Rule 57A is not disputed. If the credit under Rule 57Q is disallowed, the same would have to be allowed under Rule 57A in view of the ratio of the above cited decisions. Therefore, there is no ground to deny the modvat credit to the appellants in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and the same is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Announced in the Court)