Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Tribunal

Collector Of Central Excise vs K.L. Steel Ltd. on 24 May, 1999

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Delhi
Collector Of Central Excise vs K.L. Steel Ltd. on 24 May, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999 ECR 677 Tri Delhi, 1999 (111) ELT 608 Tri Del


ORDER

G.R. Sharma, Member (T)

1. The Revenue has filed the above captioned three appeals against the orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowing Modvat credit on electrical components, OCB. Voltage Controller and Sandvik Tips in Appeal No. 1156 and welding rods and lubricating oil as inputs in Appeal No. E/1157 and welding electrodes and cables in Appeal No. E/1158. The Assistant Collector disallowed Modvat credit on electrical components, OCB, voltage controller and sandvik tips on the ground that these items are not directly used in the manufacture of the final products. Similarly, in the case of welding rods and lubricating oils, the Assistant Collector held that these items are consumables and hence Modvat credit was not admissible. So also was the case in respect of welding electrodes and cables.

2. Arguing the appeals, Shri Satnam Singh, learned SDR submits that these items may be used anywhere not only in the plant and machinery installed in the factory and he submits that this position has not been brought out in the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals).

3. Shri Rajesh Chhibber, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Tribunal has been consistently holding that electrical components, OCB, voltage controller and oils are capital goods and that direct use of an item to be considered as capital goods is not required nor is direct nexus required to be established. He submits that the learned Collector (Appeals) in Appeal No. E/1157 held that Modvat credit will be admissible on welding rods and lubricating oil as inputs. He submits that these items have not been appealed against as inputs. Learned Counsel submits that there is no appeal against lubricating oil and appeal is against welding rod as capital goods which was not the case before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned orders may be upheld and the appeals may be rejected.

4. On hearing the rival submissions, we note that a specific use of electrical components, voltage controller has been shown by the Assistant Collector in his order. We also note that electrical components, voltage controller and OCB have been treated consistently as capital goods by this Tribunal. We have also examined the admissibility of Modvat credit to sandvik tips which are nothing but tips of tools used in a lathe machines and since they are used in a lathe machine, they are capital goods.

5. In so far as Appeal No. 1157 is concerned, we agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that Modvat credit on welding rods and lubricating oil has been allowed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) as inputs. There is no appeal filed by the Department against this but on the contrary the appellants filed an appeal against welding rods as capital goods which is not the case. Thus this appeal does not arise out of the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and hence the appeal is not maintainable. In so far as the welding electrodes and cables are concerned, we have held that cables and electrodes are capital goods. Having regard to the consistent view of the Tribunal as held earlier, we do not find any legal infirmity in the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the orders are, therefore, upheld and the appeals are rejected.