ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This is a Revenue appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 147/95, dated 28-2-1996 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli granting Modvat credit on capital goods to the extent of Rs. 2,875/- in respect of one Hydraulic hand pollat truck used in the factory for movement of materials from one place to another as interpreted under Rules 57S proviso. Ld. Commissioner has taken a view that this item is essential for movement of materials for the purpose of production, producing or processing any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance the manufacture of final products and it satisfies the definition of capital goods.
2. Revenue is contesting this ground and contends that Rule 57Q provides for grant of benefit only to moulds and dyes (sic), generating sets and weighing bridges and apart from capital goods which were used for processing or producing excisable goods. It is contended that Pollat truck does not fall within the category of items described under Rule 57Q.
3. Ld. DR firmly argues that the grounds are in terms of Rule 57Q and that the item in question does not fall within the description of terms appearing under Rule 57Q and hence Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in granting benefit to the impugned item.
4. Ld. Advocate submits that capital goods includes even machinery and in similar circumstances in respect of overhead cranes, material handling items, etc., the Tribunal has considered the benefits and granted Modvat credits. The items were Bucket Elevator pipes and Tubes, Ducts, Metal Bellos Screw, Mills Dozing system/BLMS system were considered as material handling equipment and held to be eligible for Modvat credit as capital goods under Rule 57Q as held in the case of Grasim Cement v. C.C.E. as reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 354 (Tribunal). He also relies on the judgment of C.C.E. v. Mansurpur Sugar Mills Ltd. as reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 91 (Tribunal) wherein Cane unloader was considered as capital goods as it was essentially required for the purpose of loading cane in the process of manufacture of sugar. Likewise, he cites the judgment of C.C.E. v. Uttam Industrial Engineering Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 1996 (86) 498 (Tribunal) wherein the Tribunal has held that “Electrical Overhead Travelling Cranes” used for moving parts of machinery inside the production hall are eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q.
5. Ld. SDR intervening in the matter points out that the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. M.M. Forgings Ltd. as reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 617 (Tribunal) had held that Fork Lift used for transport of raw material from one place to another is eligible for Modvat benefit if use thereof shown by assessee to be essential for manufacture of final product and in order to verify the fact, the Tribunal had remanded the issue for de novo consideration.
6. Ld. Counsel points out to the letter dated 24-3-1995 issued by the appellants to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise-II Division, Hosur wherein he had explained the details of the work performed by the Hydraulic hand pollat truck used within the factory and as to how it is essential for the process of manufacture. He submits that the item has been verified by the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence in the instant case there is no need for remand.
7. On a careful consideration of the submission, notice that material handling equipments have been held to be eligible for Modvat credit as capital goods in all the above judgments. Only in one item in the case of M.M. Forgings Ltd., the matter was remanded for verification and the latter also clearly states that if the material handling items which are essential in manufacturing of final products, then benefit of Modvat is to be granted. In this case, the appellants had vide their letter dated 24-3-1995 explained to the Assistant Commissioner as to how the item is being utilised for movement of goods within the factory and how it is essential for the purpose of manufacture. The Commissioner has satisfied himself on this issue and has granted the benefit. I notice that the law in terms of the cited cases above covers the facts of the present case and there is no merit in the appeal and hence the same is rejected.