ORDER
C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)
1. Perused records and heard both sides. The appeal is directed against denial of Modvat credit on certain capital goods and spare parts for capital goods. The submission of the appellant is that their claim remains covered by the decision of this Tribunal as well as the instructions of the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The first item in question is Tank fitted on trailer. This item is used for moving propane gas within the factory. The contention of the appellant is that material handling equipment used in relation to production are eligible for Modvat credit in terms of the decision of a Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III, Gurgaon v. Machine Plastics Ltd. [2001 (132) E.L.T. 71 (Tri. – Del.)]. As against this, the learned Departmental Representative has pointed out that in the appellant’s own case, in another appeal, the claim was rejected by this Tribunal. In this connection learned Counsel has pointed out that the denial of credit was only on account of the fact that it had not been established that the item in question was used for moving materials within the factory. Whatever be the reason for denial of credit in that case, since the issue remains covered in favour of the appellant by the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench, there is no justification for upholding the order. The credit was due to the appellant.
2. In regard to Pen Recorders, Light bulbs switching amplifier, Screw Compressor for air-conditioning machine, parts programmable logic controllers. The submission is that these items are parts of capital goods and such parts are eligible for exemption and that is the position clarified by the Central Board in its Circular No. A276/110/96-TRU dated 2-12-96. The learned Counsel has referred in particular to the following points from the Circular.
“3. The matter has been examined. With effect from 23-7-1996, capital goods eligible for credit under Rule 57A have been specified either by their classification or by their description. Clauses (a) to (c) of Explanation (1) of the said rule cover capital goods by their classification whereas clause (d) covers goods by their description viz. components, spares and accessories of the said capital goods. It may be noted that there is a separate entry for components, spares and accessories and no reference has been made about their classification. As such, scope of this entry is not restricted only to the components, spares and accessories falling under Chapter 82, 84, 85 or 90 but covers all components, spares and accessories of the specified goods irrespective of their classification. The same was the position prior to amendment in Rule 57A (i.e. prior to 23-7-1996) when credit was available on components, spares and accessories of the specified capital goods irrespective of their classification.”
3. In the light of the above clarification of the Board, it was not open to the Revenue to contend that the credit was not available.
4. In regard to Videojet Inkjet Printer, the contention of the learned Counsel is that this item remained covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Surat Beverages P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I [2004 (165) E.L.T. 313].
5. As noted above, all the items in dispute are eligible for Modvat credit. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed after setting aside the impugned order with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant.