ORDER
S.S. Kang
1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice. Thereafter, the appeal is being taken up in the absence of respondents.
2. Heard ld. D.R. and perused the appeal papers.
3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn and were availing the benefit of MODVAT Credit in respect of inputs as well as in respect of capital goods. The respondents availed the benefit of MODVAT Credit under Rule 57 Q of the rules as capital goods, on glass wool, used as insulator in the roof of the building of the factory. Show cause notice was issued to the respondents for denying the benefit of MODVAT Credit. The adjudicating authority allowed the benefit of MODVAT Credit on the ground that it is essential for the manufacturer of yarn. The revenue filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the same.
4. The contention of the revenue is that glass wool is used for insulation of the roof of the factory. Therefore, it is a building material and not covered under the definition of capital goods. The provisions of capital goods are now interpreted by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Surya Roshni Ltd. reported in 2001 (129) ELT 293. The benefit of decision of the Larger Bench was not before the lower authorities at the time of passing the order. Hence the issue involved in this appeal requires reconsideration in view of the above said decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration. The adjudicating authority will decide the issue afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the respondents. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand (SIC)