ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This Revenue appeal arises from order in Appeal No. 36/99 dt. 11.3.1999 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the Modvat credit on Capital Goods to a tune of Rs. 4,16,604.21 ps. under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules 1944. The Revenue appeal is confined only on this issue. The Commissioner has held that duty demand of Rs. 1,56,226/- on account of credit availed on computers is liable to be paid by the assessee. The assessee has conceded this point. Penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been set aside which the Revenue is not agrieved with. In this case the issue is as to whether the assessee is entitled to Modvat credit on the capital goods used in the manufacture of Nylon Tyrecord fabrics which are exempted from basic excise duty? The Commissioner has relied on the Tribunal ruling rendered in the case of Anjali Transprints v. CCE, Bangalore reported in 1998 (29) RLT 305 : 1998 (79) ECR 470 (T) wherein it has been held that additional excise duty is also to be treated as excise duty and is eligible for proforma credit.
2. Appearing for the Revenue, the Ld. DR contends in this appeal the Modvat credit is not available on the Capital Goods as it is exempted from basic duty.
3. With regard the Tribunal decisions relied by the Commissioner, the Revenue contends that they have not accepted the said citations and have preferred a Reference Application for referring the matter to the Hon’ble High Court.
4. I have heard Shri C. Mani, Ld. DR for the Revenue and Shri Sankararaman, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents. Both sides reiterated their points.
5. On a careful consideration, I notice that this issue is no longer res integra. The Tribunal in the case of Anjali Transprints v. CCE (supra) have gone into the very issue in detail and have held that proforma credit is available in respect of the additional excise duty paid by the asseessee on the goods. While so holding, the Tribunal has relied on the earlier ruling of this Bench rendered in the case of CCE v. Vijayalakshmi Mills vide final order No. 846/95 dt. 13.12.1995 which is now . A further reference has been made to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court ruling referred in the case of Parekh Prints v. UOI and also that of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court’s judgment rendered in the case of Maheswari Mills Ltd. v. UOI . In view of the matter, having been decided by the two Hon’ble High Courts there is no point to distinguish these earlier judgments rendered to this Bench. Respectfully following the rulings, the appeal is rejected.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open court)