Judgements

Commissioner Of Central Excise, … vs H.I. Dairy & Agro Product Ltd. on 10 September, 2001

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Calcutta
Commissioner Of Central Excise, … vs H.I. Dairy & Agro Product Ltd. on 10 September, 2001


JUDGMENT

Archana Wadhwa

1. The short point involved in the present appeal of the Revenue is as to whether the compressor, set of suction and discharge stop values and drive set fly wheel are admissible for modvat credit as capital goods or not. The original adjudicating authority held by disallowing the credit and by observing that the same are under the category of refrigerating and air conditioning applications which have been kept out of the purview of modvat credit.

2. The appeal against the above order was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) who after considering the various submissions made by the appellants have remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision after considering the manner of use and place of use of such goods. The Revenue is aggrieved with the above order. Hence the present appeal.

3. I have heard Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, ld. JDR. Nobody has appeared for the respondents. After going through the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), I find that he has discussed the use of such items in the manufacture of final product which is Ice Cream and has held the manner of use and place of use of important. Also by making some other observations, he has directed the original adjudicating authority to re-examine the eligibility in the light of the observations made by him. It is the Revenue’s contention that the items in question being meant for refrigerating and air conditioning applications is ousted by the exclusion clause of Rule 57Q. If that be so, the fact that they are used in the manufacture of final product or for bringing about any change in any substance in the manufacture of finished goods becomes irrelevant items would be specifically excluded from the purview of rule 57Q only if the same is otherwise covered under the said goods as capital goods. Hence, it is the exclusion clause which would have application and not the main clause defining capital goods.

4. Inasmuch as the matter has also been remanded to the Assistant Commissioner, I direct the Assistant Commissioner to decide the issue afresh without taking into consideration the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal of the Revenue is allowed to the above extent.

(Pronounced)