Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S Gujrat Ambuja Cement Ltd. vs M/S. Cce Chandigarh on 17 April, 2001
ORDER
P.S. Bajaj
1. These appels have been filed by the appellants against the impugned order in appeal dated 4.5.99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had partly modified the order in original of the Assistant Commissioner by allowing modvat credit only on same of goods in question and not all the goods as detailed in the other itself, to the respondents.
2. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of cement falling under Chapter 25 (Sub-heading 2502.29) of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. The availed modvat credit on certain goods by projecting the same as 'capital goods' as detailed in the impugned order, but the Assistant Commissioner after issuing them show cause notice and on getting their reply disallowed the modvat credit by holding that the goods in question did not fall within the definition of 'capital goods' under Rule 57-Q of the Rules. That order in original dated 15.1.98 of the Assistant Commissioner was challenged by the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals) who partly modified by allowing the modvat credit on certain goods, through the impugned order.
3. The appellants have come up in appeal before the Tribunal.
4. Today the appeal was fixed for mention for awaiting the Larger Bench decision on the 'capital goods' That decision had already been announced by the Larger Bench. Both the sides have prayed before us that the appeal may be disposed of on merits in the light of the Larger Bench decision.
5. It has been fairly conceded by both the sides that the question as to whether the goods in question satisfied the definition of 'capital goods' as laid down in Explanation 1 appended to rule 57-Q of the Rules, requires re-examination in the light of the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of CCE Indore Vs. Surya Roshini, 2001 (42) RLT 817 (CEGAT-LB). We have gone through the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and we agree with the request of both the sides. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the matter is sent back to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority for re-examining the issue of capital goods in the light of the Larger Bench decision in CCE Vs. Surya Roshini, (supra) after affording opportunity of hearing to both the sides.
5. The appeals of the appellants accordingly stand allowed by way of remand.
Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.