ORDER
1. This is an appeal under Sub-section (1) of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. The facts briefly are that the respondent, company, is engaged in the manufacturing of cement, which is subject to levy of Central Excise under Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the relevant period, credit of the Central Excise duty (CENVAT) paid on the capital goods used in the factory was granted to a manufacturer under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). Explanation (1) to Rule 57Q of the said rules defines capital goods. The relevant portion of the said Explanation (1) to Rule 57Q is quoted herein below:
(a) machines, machinery, plant, apparatus, tools or appliances used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of ‘Final Products”:
(b) …
(c) …
(d) Following goods falling within the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) and used in the factory of the manufacturer –
(i) All goods falling under heading nos. 84.02, 84.05, 84.06, 84.11, 84.12, 84.16, 84.17, 84.19, 84.21, 84.23, 84.25 to 84.28, 84.80, 85.05, 85.35, 90.11, 90.12, 90,13, 90.16, 90.17 and 90.24 to 90.31
(ii) …
(iii) …
(iv) …
(v) …
(vi) …
(vii) …
(viii)…
(ix) components, spares and accessories of the goods specified against items (i) to (viii) above;
(x) …
3. In the cement plant of the respondent, parts of Stacker Reclaimer and Structural Support for Conveyor System were installed. It was contended before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, on behalf of appellant in Appeal No. E/624/04 that Stacker Reclaimer and Structural Support for Conveyor System do not fall within the definition of capital goods in Explanation (1) to Rule 57Q of the rules. The Tribunal rejected the said contention of the appellant. The Tribunal held that the Structural Support is used for installation of conveyor and since material handling equipments are eligible for credit, therefore, denial of credit on these supporting structure for conveyor is not correct as the supporting structures are accessories of the conveyor system and it is a material handling system which is covered by the definition of capital goods.
4. Regarding Stacker Reclaimers, the Tribunal held that Stacker Reclaimers are used as material handling equipment and material handling is an integral process during manufacture of final products and, therefore, credit cannot be denied on these parts of Reclaimers. These are covered by definition of capital goods under Clause (a) of Explanation (1) to Rule 57Q. Aggrieved by the said findings of the Tribunal in the order dated 21-11-2003 in the said appeal, the appellant has filed this appeal raising the following two questions before this Court:
(1) Whether Modvat credit is admissible on the parts of stacker reclaimer falling under Heading 8474.10 of the Central Excise Tariff, when the goods of the said heading were not included as capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944?
(2) Whether structural support for conveyor system is eligible capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944?.
5. After hearing Shri O.P. Namdeo, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri U.S. Bhat, learned Counsel for the respondent, we are of the considered opinion that the findings of the Tribunal that Stacker Reclaimers are used as material handling equipment and material handling is an integral process during manufacture of final products are finding of facts. Further, the finding of the Tribunal that the structural support for conveyor is an essential support for installation of conveyor and constitutes accessories of conveyor system, it also a finding of the fact. Since the Tribunal has come to the factual finding that Stacker Reclaimers are parts of machines, machinery, plant, apparatus, tool or appliances used for producing or processing of any goods, they are obviously covered in the definition of capital goods in Clause (a) to Explanation (1) below Rule 57Q of the Rules which were eligible for credit under Rule 57Q of the Rules. Similarly, since the Tribunal has come to the factual finding that Structural Support for Conveyor is an essential support for installation of conveyor and constitutes accessories of conveyor system which were part of the material handling equipment of the plant of respondent, such structural support for conveyor system also fell within the Clauses (a) and (d)(i)(x) of Explanation (1) to Rule 57Q defining capital goods which are eligible for Modvat credit of Rule 57Q.
6. We are, therefore, not satisfied that any substantial question of law arises for decision in this case.
We accordingly dismiss the appeal.