ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This is a Revenue appeal against the order in appeal No. 5/2001 (M-I)(D) dt. 5.3.2001 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the assessee’s plea that Neoprene Rubber sheets are actually manufactured into Gaskets falling under sub heading 4008.29 of the Tariff Act and that they are not used in the form in which they were received and as they had been utilised in the manufacture of the final product as Gaskets, the item qualifies for eligibility of credit as Captial Goods under Rule 57Q. In this regard the Commissioner (Appeals) followed the CEGAT final order No. 1715/99 dt. 9.7.1999 on this very issue in their own case. The Revenue is aggrieved with this order and filed this appeal contending that the item cannot be treated as Capital Goods. As the same had been actually converted into washers and Gaskets falling under different sub heading of the Tariff before use and as such rubber sheets were not used in the form in which they were received to treat them as component parts eligible for credit under Rule 57Q of the Rules.
2. Heard Shri C. Mani, JDR for the Revenue and Shri Amit Kumar, Finance Officer for the respondents. The Ld. DR prays for setting aside the impugned order and attempted to distinguish the final orders cited by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. The representative of the assessee filed a copy of another final order no. 173-175/2002 dt. 22.2.2002 in their own case by which the Revenue appeal of this very item has been rejected by applying the ratio of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. . He submits this issue being covered one and therefore, the appeal is required to be rejected.
4. On a careful consideration I notice that the Commissioner has examined all the facts and found the item to be capital goods. He has also applied the ratio of the Tribunal judgment. The Tribunal has also accepted the assessees contention and have dismissed the Revenue (Appeals) vide final order No. 1715/1999 dt. 9.7.1999 and also by Final order No. 173-175/2002. There is no merit in this appeal and the same may be rejected.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open court)