ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The question for consideration in these four appeals is the eligibility of the manufacturer, Torren Gujarat Bio-Tech Ltd., to take credit under Rule 57Q. The Commissioner (Appeals) has two orders extending the benefit to some goods and denying the same to others. The department is in appeal against that portion extending the benefit and the assessee is against that portion of the order denying the credit.
2. The common ground in each of these appeals of the department is that the capital goods in question were not specified in Rule 57Q as it stood at the relevant time. The goods could not fall within the description of goods used for producing or processing any goods or bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of the final product.
3. It would be appropriate to first deal with the appeals of the assessee. The goods in question are classifiable into storage tank of various types, electrical transformers; pipers and pipe fittings; electrical motors and other provisions for electrical connection. The ratio of the decision of the larger bench in Jawahar Mills Vs. CCE 1998 (108)ELT 47 is that the expression ‘goods used for producing or processing or bringing out any change in any substance’ should not be so strictly construed as to limit it to machines or machinery or appliances, etc. which are used directly for this purpose, and would cover such items and machinery without the final products could not be produced in the factory. By application of this ratio, all the goods (with one exception) that are to be considered in the assessee’s and the department’s appeals would have to be considered to be capital goods and the duty paid on them available as credit.
4. The exception is water purification chemicals. Counsel for Torrent Gujarat Bio-Tech Limited, the manufacturer does not deny that these would not be capital goods as defined under Rule 57Q but contends that they would be entitled to credit under Rule 57A. The Departmental representative’s objection is that these are not declared under Rule 57A. If these chemicals were used in the water purification for the appellant’s factory and such purification was essential for producing its final product this would be inputs covered by Rule 57A and subject to fulfilment of the requirement of that rules they would be entitled to credit. The details we find are specifically included in the declaration filed under Rule 57T. Thus, the intention to use them for making the final product has been communicated to the department in the declaration filed under that rule The fault, if at all, is that he benefit has been claimed under a wrong rule. There is a long line of decisions holding that where initially the assessee did not pay duty on goods manufactured by it in the belief that they were entitled to exemption and duty is demanded later, the failure to declare inputs should not be allowed to come in the way of taking credit that would otherwise be due We may cite the Tribunal’s decision in Formica India Vs. CCE 1997 (108) ELT 761 the ratio of which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1995 (77) ELT 511. There are other decisions holding that notwithstanding the failure to claim an inputs specifically under Rule 57A if the fact of use of the inputs had been otherwise brought to the notice of the department, the benefit under Rule 57A should not be denied. (Thermal Coatings Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE 1995 (63) ELT 176). Therefore, the failure merely to specify the input under Rule 57T should not be a bar for claiming credit. We are therefore of the view that the credit would be available to these chemicals under Rule 57A.
5 Appeals E/2265 & 2266/96 are allowed and appeals E/1117 & 1129/97 dismissed.