ORDER
P.C. Jain, Vice President
1. Question involved in the present matter is regarding admissibility of Modvat credit on some of the capital goods which are electrical machinery or parts of electrical machinery. The lower authority has allowed the Modvat credit. It is against the said order that the Revenue has come in appeal before the Tribunal. Revenue’s contention is that since the said goods are not used in production of any goods or in processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance these are not covered by the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q. It is also submitted by the ld. JDR that some of the items for example HRC Fuses falling under Tariff Heading 85.35 have been specifically included in clause (d) of Rule 57Q. Therefore, by inference, he submits, HRC Fuses falling under Tariff Heading 85.36 will get excluded from the scope of capital goods. Similarly, he points out that the Transformer for Induction Knocking involved in the present case does not give the voltage. It is only transformer exceeding 75 K.V.A. that are included within the scope of definition of capital goods. He therefore submits that in the absence of the voltage of the present transformer before us it may not be included within the definition of capital goods. He also points out that Flange Glass or Oil Indicator involved in the present case is a part of the Centrifugal Compressor which are parts of Air Conditioning machinery under Tariff Heading 84.14 and therefore are excluded by virtue of clause (d) (iv) of definition of capital goods. He also raises a point regarding SUS wire. He submits that it is not in the nature of wires and cables and therefore would not be covered by the definition of capital goods.
2. Opposing the contentions, ld. Advocate, Ms. Amrita Mitra submits that Tribunal’s Larger Bench judgment in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. [1999 (108) E.L.T. 47] covers the entire gamut of capital goods used as machine, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances used in a plant for manufacture of final products. She submits that these are used in the manufacture of the plant for colour picture tubes. She therefore, submits that all these equipments are squarely covered by the judgment of Larger Bench (supra). As for the specific points taken by the ld. JDR, she further submits that what has been specifically included in clause (d) does not mean that other items covered by the general definition of capital goods are excluded from the scope of definition of capital goods. Clause (d) merely specifies the list of specified goods which are included within the definition of capital goods so as to put at rest all doubts.The general definition will still be applicable and for this reason jawahar Mills judgment will be applicable fully to the present case. She therefore submits that the stay petition of the revenue be dismissed and the appeal be allowed being fully covered by the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal.
3. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both the sides. We are inclined to agree with the submissions of the ld. Advocate for the respondent herein. Tribunal’s Larger Bench judgment in the case of Jawahar Mills (supra) fully supports her view point. Therefore, following the ratio of the said judgment, we dismiss this appeal of Revenue. Stay Petition also gets disposed of.