9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant Commissioner had disallowed the Modvat credit taken by the respondents on Kent Oil Meter and Isolation Transformer Logic Control as capital goods in September 1994 and January 1995 respectively, on the ground that the said items were not directly used in the manufacture of final products in the assessee's factory and hence not eligible for the capital goods credit under Rule 57-Q of Central Excise Rules. In the appeal filed by the assessee, against this order of adjudication, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) reversed the findings of the Assistant Commissioner and held that Kent Oil Meter and Isolation Transformer were capital goods eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57-Q ibid, following various decisions of the Tribunal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r on the M.S rollers (base shell) supplied by the respondents is merely an intermediate process during the course of manufacture of the capital goods (engraved M.S. rollers) and that such copper plating is not covered by the definition of capital goods under Rule 57-Q of the Central Excise Rules. The Department has further contended that the Tribunal's decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras v. Lucas TVS Ltd. [1995 (78) E.L.T. 709 (T)] relied on by the lower appellate authority is not relevant to the facts of the case. The ld. DR has reiterated and elaborated this ground of the appeal by submitting that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lucas TVS Ltd. was one rendered in the context of Rule 57F(2) of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts had filed the necessary Modvat declaration in respect of such capital goods. The only plea of the Revenue in the present appeal is that copper plating is not covered by the expression 'capital goods' under the explanation to Rule 57-Q ibid. This plea stands successfully rebutted by the respondents' Counsel on the strength of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Facit Asia Ltd. (supra), the ratio of which is, in my view, squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. That decision was rendered in respect of certain inputs while the instant case relates to capital goods. However, the question involved in both the cases is essentially the same i.e. one relating to admissibility of Modvat credit of the duty paid by a job worker on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oil) into the generating set, explains the ld. Counsel, who further submits that the Kent Oil Meter has a function integrally connected with the process of manufacture of final products in the respondents factory and that the said meter is covered by the expression 'capital goods' under the Explanation to Rule 57-Q(1) ibid. In support of this submission, he relies on the following decisions of the Tribunal :- 1. CCE, Belgaum v. Malnad Alloy Castings Pvt. Ltd. [1999 (108) E.L.T. 181 (T)]. 2. Birla VXL Ltd. v. CCE [1998 (99) E.L.T. 452 (T)] 3. Jindal Polymers v. CCE [1998 (103) E.L.T. 569 (T)] 6. In the case of Malnad Alloy Castings, the question was whether spectrometer used for checking/testing molten metal was capital goods eligi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
