ORDER
G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order in appeal dated 20-1-2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal.
2. Arguing for the Revenue, Dr. Ravinder Babu, ld. JDR submitted that issue relates to Modvat credit. The party is claiming Modvat credit in respect of raw materials which were used in coil. He said that coil was neither sold nor marketed in the instant case. What the party has done in this case is repairing of the transformer supplied by the Electricity Board. Transformer as such was not manufactured by the assessee and accordingly the party is not entitled to take Modvat credit in respect of raw materials which were used in the coil.
3. It was also contended on behalf of the Revenue that coil as such is not a marketable product nor capable of being marketed. On the other hand, the respondent’s Counsel submitted that what the party has claimed in this is Modvat credit in respect of the raw material used in the coil. The defective coil in the respective transformer supplied by the Electricity Board were replaced by the new coil which were manufactured by the assessee. He submmited that the party has issued invoices separately in favour of the Electricity Board towards repair of transformer and for sale of coil. This was clearly brought out by the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 5 of the impugned order. Para 5 of the impugned order is as under :-
“5. The marketability of the ‘Coil’ is also established by the issue of the invoices in favour of the Electricity Boards towards repairing of transformer which further reinforces the view that the coil is a manufactured item regarding some of the other inputs, alleged to have not been used in the manufacture of new transformer the appellant’s contention is sustainable that the inputs issued for the manufacturing process would not always result as a final product within a specified period. Since nothing has been brought on record to establish that the inputs were used in the repairing of transformers as has been alleged in the impugned order, the findings of the adjudicating authority on this count is not sustainable. The appellants in support of their contention that the inputs so cleared were used in the manufacture of new transformer which came into existence in the month of October & November, 1996 have produced photocopies of RG 1 register of these months, which shows production of transformers.”
4. I have carefully considered the matter. There is some force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent that what they have sold to the Electricity Board is coil and not the transformer. Coil is a product which were manufactured on which duty has been paid. Duty paid nature of coil is not in dispute. In the facts and circumstances, there is no justification to deny the Modvat credit in respect of the raw materials which were used in the coil and in turn coil was supplied to the Electricity Board. In the view, I have taken, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, appeal filed by the department is hereby dismissed.