1999 (11) TMI 219 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved: Determination of modvatability of goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules for the purpose of availing Modvat credit.

Summary:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved the question of whether certain items, namely auto mill feed pipe, PVC insulated cable, and plain plates, qualified as modvatable capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules for the period of June and July 1996. The appellants, engaged in cement manufacturing, had taken Modvat credit on these goods, which the department disputed. The Assistant Commissioner disallowed the credit and imposed a penalty, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The Tribunal considered each item separately.

Auto Mill Feed Pipe:
The Tribunal found that the auto mill feed pipe was integral to the process of manufacturing cement, as it was used for analyzing the raw mix essential for producing quality clinker. The Tribunal disagreed with the lower appellate authority's decision, which questioned the nature of the pipes, and held that the auto mill feed pipe qualified as a capital good under Rule 57Q.

PVC Insulated Cable:
Regarding the PVC insulated cable used in the EOT crane, the Tribunal held that since the crane itself was a capital good, the cables supplying power to it should also be considered capital goods under Rule 57Q, contrary to the lower appellate authority's decision.

Plain Plates:
The Tribunal determined that the plain plates, used for repairing the kiln shell in the cement manufacturing process, qualified as capital goods under Rule 57Q. The Tribunal disagreed with the decision cited by the Revenue, emphasizing that the plain plates were directly used in the kiln, unlike the items in the cited case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the lower appellate authority's decision on the modvatability of the auto mill feed pipe, PVC insulated cable, and plain plates, allowing the appeal. Additionally, the Tribunal criticized the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) for questioning the Tribunal's decisions without proper legal basis, emphasizing the binding nature of Tribunal decisions on lower authorities.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellants on the modvatability of the disputed goods and highlighting the importance of respecting Tribunal decisions in quasi-judicial functions.