ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. All these five appeals filed by Revenue are against the same assessee arising from two Orders-in-Appeal No. 212/98(CBE) dated 19.12.98 passed by CCE (Appeals) Trichy, the same Commissioner disposing of Order-in-Appeal Nos. 206 to 209/98 (CBE) dated 31.12.98.
2. The Assessee had filed declaration under Rule 57T for claiming credit of duty on the capital goods. The period in question pertains to April, 95 to July, 95. On a detailed examination of all the items, the lower authority held that the goods in question were not used in the production and processing of the final product and hence they are not capital goods covered under Rule 57Q.
3. The assessee had taken a plea that materials were not used in the construction of re-inforced concrete and building but materials like HS plate, MS angles channels were used for structural support system for the equipments and machinery in order to enable them to function. They were also used for DM tank, LSHS tank and furnace oil tanks. Similarly, RS joists/MS beams were used for piping support for assessee’s plant. MS flats were used for tanks and tor steel was used for stucturals to provide support of the equipments which was necessary for any equipment to function. On a consideration of their submissions, the Commissioner did not accept their plea and denied benefit in respect of tar steel, MS plates, MS angles as not covered in the definition of ‘capital goods’. Assessee had filed separate appeal in respect of these items which is not listed before me today.
4. However, he agreed with assessee with regard to tubes and pipes, flanges, couplings which were used for flow of material/transfer of material and in this regard, he relied on the judgment of the tribunal rendered in Siel Sugars 1998 (99) ELT 54.
5. The Commissioner denied benefit on nuts & bolts, on which appeal of the assessee is not listed before me. He, likewise, did not grant benefit to valves, gauges, fork lifts, digital indicator. He also denied benefit to Metco NS Powder, welding wire, Maleic Resin, Hose washer, paints. He granted benefit with regard to PVC water stopper as it is used for electrical line for proper functioning of their plant. He has allowed for the item “bearings” as they are held to be part and parcel of machines and covered under the definition of “capital goods”. He allowed benefit with regard to Remi SS tubes.
6. In Appeal E/609/99, the Revenue is aggrieved with grant of benefit on four items, namely (i) tubes pipes, flanges and couplings (ii) PVC Water Stopper (iii) bearings, and (iv) Remi SS Tubes.
7. I have heard both sides in the matter and after due consideration, I notice that the above items are covered by the judgment of Tribunal and the issue is no longer res integra. The first item is covered by the ruling of CCE v. Chemplast India Ltd. . The other items are covered by the judgment of Siel Sugars v. CCE Meerut ; Kapson Electrostamping v. CCE 1999 (31) RLT 309. In view of the above judgments, the Revenue appeal E/609/1999 is rejected.
8. In so far as Appeal No. E/631 to 634/1999 is concerned, it arises from OIA No. 206 to 209 dated 31.12.98. In these appeals, the Commissioner decided the issue pertaining to 58 items. In respect of the following 15 items, the revenue is aggrieved to grant benefit on these items.
9. I have heard both sides in the matter.
10. Ld DR took me through the grounds of appeal and contended that the items on which the modvat credit has given the benefit cannot be held and the Order-in-Original requires to be confirmed.
11. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel Shri S. Anand filed list of case-law alongwith the table to show that each of the item has already been considered by the Tribunal as ‘capital goods’ and benefit granted.
12. In so far as the other items are concerned, the appeals of the assessee are not listed for consideration now. Taking into consideration the judgments rendered by the Tribunal which are noted below in the form of a table alongwith each of the items, the issue is totally covered in favour of the assessee and the judgments are required to be followed for the purpose of dismissal of the revenue appeal. The serial number and description of the goods and case-law pertaining to each of the item is reproduced below:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
SI No. Description of goods Case law allowing credit
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Stainless steel tubes, Steel tubes, 1. Siel Sugar v. CCE, Meerut, 1998 (99)
Flanges, Spares ELT 54 (T)
2. CCE, Coimbatore v. Chemplast Sanmar
Ltd. 2001 (132) ELT504 (T)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Valves J.K Pharmacem v. CCE, Trichy, 1997
(72) ECR 423
Bengal Safety India v. CCE 1997 (68)
ECR 894
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Rotameter PVC Insulated Conductors Arctic Drinks Ltd. v. CCE 2000(38)
cables, and valves RLT1099 (T)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. Lubricator Assembly and Compressor CCE, Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills Ltd.
spares 2001 (132) ELT3 (SC)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
5. HCL storage Tank, M.S. Tank and steam STS Chemical Ltd. v. Commissioner,
condensate K.O. drums 2001 (132) ELT 704
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
6. Gauges and linkages, pressure gauges Seil Sugar v. CCE, Meerut 1998 (99)
Rotameter, pressure controls, pressure ELT 54 (T)
switch, Digital temperature controler,
Data logging system, Weather moisture
proof gauge, UV tube Assembly,
Moisture analyser, sensor and sensor
cables, pressure control instruments and
gauges and spare metering tube
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
7. Spare kit coil used in dryer in pulsing CCE v. SSPE Cotton Mills Ltd. 2000
operation (91) ECR 357 (T)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
8. Spares tor water jetting pump, Reliance Industries v. CCE Surat 2000
suction/discharge valve, high pressure (118) ELT 720
valve and gate valve
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
9. Metal bellow expansion joint CCE, Coimbatore v. Chemplast Sanmar
2001 (132)ELT 504 (T)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
10. Grease free automatic SPG Band Prasad filmsLaboratories v.CCE,
Apparatus Chennai 2001 (130) ELT 491 (T)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
11. Motor controls and panes, PVC CCE, Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills Ltd.
Insulated Conductor, Cables, Aplab 2001 (132) ELT 3 (SC)
custom power supply, 75 KVA
Accessories and 3 Phase resin cast
support assembly
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
12. Dual Chennel Chromatography Hand CCE, v. Chenab Textiles Ltd. 2001 (120)
stock sampler and dual channel ELT 417 (T)
chromatography interface card oracle
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
13. Impeller Indian Farmer & Fertilizer’s
Cooperative v. CCE 1996 (86) ELT 177
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
14. Spares for C/V spring 1. CCE, Chennai v. Indchem Electronics
Ltd. Final Order No. 14612002 dt.
12.2.2002.
2. CCE, Coimbatore v. Southern Iron &
Steel Co. 2000 (121) ELT 164 (T)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
15. Three air pole breaker Commissioner v. Chukapalli Authomotive
Components (P) Ltd. 2001 (130) ELT 461
(T)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
13. On going through each of the item and the judgment cited, I notice that the issue is no longer res integra and all items have been granted benefit of modvat credit by the Tribunal and further notice that Apex Court CCE v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. (supra) has also upheld the grant of modvat credit in respect of conductors, cables and values and various similar items which assist in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in these revenue appeals and same are rejected.