ORDER
K.C. Mamgain, Member (T)
1. Heard both the sides.
2. The appellants are challenging the denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 51,1237- on Protection Boxes, Rs. 3,975/- on Pressure Switches, Rs. 1,12,105/- on Public Address System and its parts and Rs. 17,385/- on Invoice No. 22, dated 3-1-1995 issued by M/s. Enpro Industrial Automation Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 258/- on Invoice No. 123 dated 29-12-1994 issued by M/s. Nagman Sensors Pvt. Ltd., Madras, respectively.
2. Shri Joy Kumar, Id. Advocate for the appellants pleaded that Protection Boxes are required for the termination of various instruments cable between the field instruments and distribution control system for the process control in the manufacturing process of caustic soda. Pressure Switches are required for the process control, therefore, are important for manufacturing process. Public Address System and its parts are placed in the control room for effective communication of process parameters to the different sections of the plant. Regarding the disputed invoices, he now produces the original invoices and pleads that these may be sent to the original authority for examination.
3. Shri Randhir Singh, Id. JDR pleads that Protection Boxes and Pressure Switches are not taking part in the production or manufacture of the goods, therefore, these are not eligible for Modvat credit. Regarding Public Address System and its parts, he says that these are loudspeaker with amplifier, which has nothing to do with the manufacture process and are not eligible for Modvat credit. Regarding the two invoices, he says that since the appellants have neither produced these before the original authority nor they have taken orders for producing additional evidences before the Tribunal, therefore, these cannot be admitted, at this stage.
4. On considering the submissions of both the sides, I find that the Protection Boxes and Pressure Switches are parts of the process control systems and, therefore, credit on these cannot be denied as the disputed period is Jan., 1995 to Feb., 1995 and at that time, the definition of capital goods was very wide and these are clearly covered by the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of CCE v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. [2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 (S.C)]. Regarding Public Address Systems and its parts, I am not convinced that these are taking part in communication of the parameters in the manufacturing process as no evidence has been produced that through this system and its parts, any manufacturing processes are controlled or parameters are communicated. Therefore, credit on Public Address Systems and its parts has been correctly denied by the lower authorities. Regarding the two disputed invoices, I find that the appellants have not produced these copies before the lower authorities. Ld. Advocate pleaded that they have traced the lost original copies now and these are not new evidences but only the original copies of the already produced invoices before the lower authorities. I find that since these documents have been produced now, the matter is remanded back to the original authority for the limited purpose, of examining afresh these two disputed invoices and pass fresh order whether the credit is allowable on these two invoices or not. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is modified as above. Ordered accordingly.