ORDER
P.K. Das, Member (J)
1. All these appeals are arising out of common Order-in-appeal dated 30.11.2004 and, therefore, the same are taken up for hearing for disposal.
2. The learned advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that in this case, the cenvat credit was disallowed on the capital goods namely welding electrodes, D.A. Gas, Plain plates, angle iron, channels, H.R. sheets and lubricants. He submits that the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Neer Shree Cement v. CCE, Jaipur rejected the Reference Application filed by the Revenue vide Order dated 8.8.2003 in respect of the disallowance of cenvat credit on welding electrodes and D.A. Gas. He farther submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the plain plates, angle iron, channels and H.R. sheets were used as components and parts of the machinery. So this case is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vikram Ispat Ltd. v. CCE, Raigarh 2006 (76) RLT 862 (CESTAT Mumbai) He also referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Divi’s Laboratories Ltd. v. CCE, Visakhapatnam 2006 (196) ELT 285 (Tri.-Bang.). He submits that regarding disallowance of cenvat credit on lubricants and imposition of penalty, the Commissioner (Appeals) had not given any finding.
3. The learned D.R. on behalf of the Revenue submits that the Tribunal in the case of J.K. Cement v. CCE, Jaipur 2007 (78) RLT 581 disallowed the cenvat credit on welding electrodes and D.A. gas. He further submits that the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Modern Steels Ltd. vide Final Order No. 1750/06-SM-BR dated 7.12.2006 disallowed the cenvat credit; on CTD bars, angle, channel, MS bar, Joist and shapes considering the change of the definition of the capital goods during the material period.
4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, I find that the Tribunal in the case of J.K. Cement (Supra) disallowed the cenvat credit on welding electrodes and D.A. gas. So, the impugned order so far as the inadmisibility of cenvat credit on welding electrodes and D.A. gas are upheld. Regarding cenvat credit on plain plates, angle iron, channels and H.R. sheets are related to the different period from 1999 to 2004. The Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Divi’s Laboratories Ltd. (Supra) allowed the cenvat credit on the said items in terms of the definition of the capital goods in Rule 2 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 but the Single Member of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Modern Steels Limited disallowed the credit on the said items on the basis of the change of definition of the capital goods. I also find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding in respect of admissibility of cenvat credit on lubricants. As such, I remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter afresh in respect of the cenvat credit on plain plates, angle iron, channels, H.R. sheets and lubricants in the light of the aforesaid decisions and also to consider the imposition of penalty.
5. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court).