ORDER
P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against that part of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 3-6-2002/9-7-2002 vide which he has allowed Modvat credit in respect of air-conditioning plant spares/components and accessories under Rule 57Q to the respondents. The other part of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing Modvat credit in respect of other items detailed in that order as well as in the show cause notice, had not been challenged by the Revenue.
2. The amount of Modvat credit involved is Rs. 75,135/-.
3. None has come present on behalf of the respondents. They have only sent written submissions. I have heard the learned JDR and gone through the record.
4. The perusal of the impugned order shows that while allowing Modvat credit on the components/spares and accessories used that for refrigeration and air-conditioning to the respondents under Rule 57Q, the Commissioner (Appeals) has placed reliance on the ratio of law laid down in Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur v. M/s. Chukapalli Automative Components P. Ltd. – 2001 (130) E.L.T. 461, wherein it has been observed that spare parts, components and accessories used in machines installed prior to 1-3-1994 were eligible for credit. But the Commissioner (Appeals) has lost sight of the fact that accessories/spares and components of air-conditioning and refrigeration stood excluded from the definition of ‘capital goods’ under Rule 57Q during the relevant time when Modvat credit was taken by the respondents. Therefore, the ratio of the law laid down in the above said case which was a case of spares of automobiles could not be made applicable to the case of the respondents. The respondents were not entitled to claim Modvat credit in respect of components/spares and accessories of air-conditioning in the face of the specific exclusion in respect thereof incorporated in the Rule 57Q itself at the relevant time. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be legally sustainable in that regard and deserves to be set aside.
5. Consequently the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent to which it has been challenged in the present appeal is set aside and the appeal of the Revenue is allowed to that extent.