ORDER
V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
1. In this appeal, filed by Revenue, the issue involved is regarding the eligibility of certain goods to Modvat Credit and about the availability of Modvat credit on the basis of invoices stamped with the words “Duplicate for transporter” instead of being printed.
2. Shri S.C. Pushkarna, learned DR, submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order had allowed the credit to the Respondents M/s. Mukerian Paper Mills on the strength of invoices where the words “Duplicate for transporter” were not printed and only stamped; that such invoices are not valid documents for availing the credit; that otherwise an assessee can rubber stamp any copy of invoice and avail Modvat credit. He also submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the capital goods credit in respect of ACB-800A which is used for controlling load tension of ECC Penal, Vacuum Gauge which is the pressure measuring instrument and ELO Guard which is used in Boiler for preventing scales; that these are not capital goods as defined in explanation to Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 since neither these goods are used for producing or processing any goods or for bringing any change in any substance for the manufacture of final product.
3. Opposing the appeal, Shri Jag Mohan Bansal, learned Advocate, submitted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills, 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) all the goods involved in the present matter are capital goods as these are used in the process of manufacture of the finished product. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Siv Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore, 2001 (129) E.L.T. 48 (Madras) wherein it was held that the word employed in the definition namely, “plant” being a term of wide import, the fact that it is used in the context of process of manufacture, the definition of manufacture is an inclusive definition in the Act. Further the fact that it is found in the context of the enumerated things of a class being used, and in the absence of any specific requirement that the use should be directly in the production or processing of goods, warrant a wider meaning being assigned to the word ‘plant’ in that definition, and not limited only to thing which directly goes into manufacturing process. It would include goods which are necessary to make the production process possible. The learned Advocate contended that all the three items in question make the process possible and as such are eligible for capital goods Modvat credit. He finally submitted that the invoice on which the words “Duplicate for transporter” have been stamped is also a valid document under Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules as the requirement of the Rule was that the copies of the invoice shall be marked and nowhere the word printed was used in the Rule.
4. I have considered the submissions of both the sides. As far as invoices only stamped with the words “Duplicate for transporter” are concerned the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had referred to the particular Circular No. 202/36/96-CX, dated 26-4-96 which provided that credit of duty paid on inputs on the strength of invoices may be allowed where invoices have not been pre-printed with the requisite details during the period 13-2-95 till the date of issuance of individual Public Notices/Trade Notices by the Commissionerates. Further, I find substance in the submissions of the learned Advocate that Sub-rule (4) of Rule 57GG only provided that the copies of the invoices shall be marked and not printed. Further the Modvat credit has been sought to be denied on the goods in question on the ground that production or process would mean physical processing of the goods or the capital goods must have a nexus in bringing about any change in the manufacturing stream. After the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jawahar Mills (supra) all the goods in question are capital goods as they are used in the process of manufacture. It has been held by the Supreme Court that the definition of the capital goods as given in explanation to Rule 57Q at the relevant time is very wide. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned Order. Accordingly I reject the appeal filed by the Revenue.
