Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Madras Aluminium Company vs Cce on 24 February, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(115)ECR94(TRI.-CHENNAI)
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. These are 3 appeals of the same assessee from 3 different orders by which Modvat Credit on the items noted herein below has been denied. There is no dispute about the filing of the declaration seeking Modvat Credit. However, the doubt raised is as to whether the declaration filed seeking the Modvat Credit benefit on consumer items can be considered as a declaration for claiming the benefit for Capital Goods.
2. On this ground, Ld. Counsel Shri M.V. Raman submits that the issue is settled by Larger Bench rendered in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Modi Ruber Limited and Ors. reported in 2000 (38) RLT 718 (CEGAT-LB). The said judgment also, allows the Modvat Credit on lubricating oils and greases, which were inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of final products. Although, both the items had been declared as Capital Goods under Rule 57Q but have been held to be inputs under Rule 57A and credit was held to be admissible though declaration was not in terms of Rule 57A. Ld. Counsel files a chart showing the items involved, their vise and their eligibility have been upheld in the citations noted below:
(i) In E/671/2003, the amount involved is Rs. 6,50,956/- and the table showing the inputs and their use and citations are noted below:
S.No. Item Used in Covered by Citation 1. Lubricating oil, For lubricating 2000 38 RLT 718 CCE greases cutting various machinery Meerut v. Modi Ruber oil engaged in the Ltd. 2001 44 RLT 529 production Che MALCO v. CCE 2. Steel strips Used as steel 2001 44 RLT 529 belts in properzi Che MALCO v. CCE machines used in the manufacture of Aluminium wire rods 3. Explosive bond connecting Aluminium 2000 38 RLT 718 flexible to steel CCE Meerut v. Modi cathode bar of Rubber Ltd. electric furnance 4. Substation Accessories of 2001 44 RLT 529 structural capacitor bank and Che MALCO v. CCE material are used to reduce maximum demand of power and improve the station power which supplies where Aluminium is manufactured.
(ii) In E/672/2003, the amount involved is Rs. 1,37,731/- and the items their use and the citations covered are noted below:
S.No. Item Used in Covered by Citation 1. Lead acid To maintain continuous 1. stationery power supply in the v. Jawahar Mills cells production of Aluminium 2. 1997 100 ELT 474 metal, these cells at CCE v. Bhushan time of power fluctuation, Steel and Strips provide energy for Ltd. energing the trip coil of the 3. circuit breaker. DLF Cement Ltd. v. CCE 4. 2000 125 ELT 1252 DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. v. CCE, Surat 5. Tube investments of India Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai
(iii) In E/673/2003, the amount involved is Rs. 1,60,315/- and the items their use and citations are noted below:
S.NO. Item Used in Covered by Citation 1. Explo Bond Connecting Aluminium 2000 38 RLT 718 Flexible to steel cathode CCE, Meerut v. Modi bar of electric furnace Ruber Ltd. 2. Lubix paste For lubricating in 38 RLT 718 CCE, billet casting Meerut v. Modi Ruber Ltd. 44 RLT 529 Che MALCO v. CCE 3. Graphited For packing pumps to Grasim Industries v. rope avoid leakage of CCE, Indore 2001 processed material 137 ELT 1341 4. Steel strips As belts in proper 2001 44 RLT 529 machinery Che MALCO v. CCE 5. Expansion For maintaining bellows temperature of (P&H) CCE v. J.C.T. aluminum metal in Ltd. liquid condition
3. Ld. Counsel Shri M. Venkataraman show that each of items involved in the above charts is covered by the judgments cited by him. He submits that the appeals are required to be allowed and Modvat Credit granted in terms of the Larger Bench judgments and the citations shown in the table extracted above.
4. Heard Ld. JDR Shri A. Jayachandran. He submits that in the absence of declaration filed by the Party, the benefit cannot be extended as held in the Larger Bench judgment rendered in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore v. Surya Roshni Ltd. . He has also filed written submissions in each of the appeal and prays for taking the same into consideration while passing the order.
5. On a careful consideration, I notice that in the case of Surya Roshni Ltd. (supra), there was no declaration filed at all, while, in the subsequent Larger Bench case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Modi Ruber Limited and Ors. the issue was whether the declaration filed for inputs can be considered as declaration for Capital Goods and vice versa. Therefore, the present situation is akin to the facts and law laid down in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Modi Ruber Limited and Ors. Respectfully following the same, the impugned order holding that there was no declaration filed is set aside.
6. Now, coming to the issue of Modvat Credit in respect of each of the items noted (supra), it is seen from the use of the item that the inputs were used in or in relation to manufacture of final products. Therefore, the items in the above noted tables are required to be considered as modvatable items in terms of the citations noted (supra). This Bench has to respectfully follow the judgments noted in the above table. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and all the 3 appeals are allowed with consequential benefit if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court).