ORDER
P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has allowed the Modvat credit of the disputed amount to the respondents on MS structures and the other goods detailed in the show cause notice.
2. The respondents took Modvat credit on certain capital goods which were received by them for setting up the Plant for the manufacture of VP sugar. The goods included sugar mill machinery, boilers and their components, structures for boilers, pipes, tubes, etc. They were, however, served with the show cause notice for having wrongly claimed Modvat credit on the capital goods. The total amount of credit availed by them was of Rs. 1,21,03,371.57. The adjudicating authority allowed the Modvat credit of Rs. 57,50,671.37 and disallowed the credit of the remaining amount of Rs. 63,52,700.20. The Modvat credit disallowed to them was on the steel structures and the goods covered by the invoices detailed at Sl. Nos. 2 and 3 of the Annexure A appended to the show cause notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the Modvat credit of the disputed amount by reversing the order-in-original in respect of both these items/goods.
3. The learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the order-in-original and contended that no Modvat credit could be allowed to the respondents on steel structures as well as on the goods covered by invoices mentioned at Sl. Nos. 2 and 3 of the Annexure A to the show cause notice. On the other hand, the learned Counsel has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. I have heard both sides. From the perusal of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), it is evident that Modvat credit on steel structures had been allowed to the respondents as the same had been used not for civil construction but for the installation of the factory for production of VP sugar. The Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded detailed reasons for allowing Modvat credit in respect of these goods. There exists no cogent reasons to differ with his findings as the same finds corroboration from the ratio of law laid down by the Tribunal in Global Sugar Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur – 2000 (119) E.L.T. 611 wherein it has been observed that Modvat credit on capital goods i.e. plates, M.S. angles, M.S. channels, steel structures, etc., would be available under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules to the assessee. Learned JDR has not been able to cite any law to the contrary.
5. The ratio of law laid down in Rosa Sugar Works v. CCE, Kanpur -1999 (114) E.L.T. 950 relied upon by the adjudicating authority for disallowing Modvat credit on M.S. structures is not attracted to the facts of the case as in that case the structures were found to have been used only for fabrication and construction purposes and for that reason, the same were not held to be capital goods under Rule 57Q. But in the instant case, the M.S. structures had been undisputedly used by the respondents for the installation of the plant meant for manufacture of VP sugar. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly allowed Modvat credit on these structures.
6. The plea of the Revenue that the invoices on the strength of which Modvat credit had been taken in respect of goods covered therein and detailed at Sl. Nos. 2 and 3 of Annexure A, are not valid documents cannot be accepted. The bare perusal of the order-in-original shows that the respondents submitted an application seeking permission to take Modvat credit on the original copy and even filed an affidavit on the ground that the duplicate copy was lost. There is no dispute regarding the receipt of the duty paid goods covered by the disputed invoices mentioned at Sl. Nos. 2 and 3 of the Annexure A to the show cause notice and the utilisation of same in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, by the respondents. Therefore, on technical ground, the Modvat credit could not be disallowed to the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly allowed Modvat credit on the strength of the disputed invoices. Moreover at the relevant time, credit could be taken on the original invoices as Rule 57T was amended on 23rd July, 1996 for allowing Modvat credit on the duplicate copy. The disputed invoices in the instant case pertains prior to July, 1996.
7. In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same is upheld. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being without merits.