ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (Judicial)
1.
The Stay and the Appeal of the Revenue are taken up together for disposal as the issue involved is covered by the decisions of the Tribunal as rendered in the case of Dabur India Ltd. vs. CCE., Meert reported in 1998 (98) ELT 674 (T); Lubin Laboratories Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore reported in 1999 (114) ELT 867 (T) and SRF Ltd. vs. CCE., Jaipur reported in 1999 (106) ELT 317 (T). Commissioner (Appeal) order No. 178/2000 (CH-I) CE dt.24.8.2000 upholds the Assessee’s contention that they are eligible to take Modvat credit on the M.S. Tanks and S.S. Tanks falling under Chapter Heading 73.10 and 73.09 respectively of the CETA as capital goods as defined under Rule 57 Q of the CE Rules. The Commissioner, while deciding the matter, has analysed that these tanks are essential equipment and form part of the capital goods are utilised in the factory as per definition given in Explanation 1(a) under Rule 57 Q ibid.
2. Arguing for the Revenue the Ld.DR submits that the Revenue is aggrieved with the order the submits that the items cannot be considered as a Capital Goods.
3. I have heard both the side. The Respondents has relied upon the above Tribunal’s decision cited above wherein it has been clearly laid down that the Stainless Steel cooling similar tanks like FRP Tank for HBR scrubber storage tanks in which raw materials Hydrofluoric acid, are to be treated as Capital goods in terms of the Rule 57 Q of the Rules. All these decisions have been referred after taking into consideration the Larger Bench decision as well as the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CCE vs. Rajasthan State Chemical works reported in 1991 (55) ELT 444 (SC).
4.
The issue involved in the instant case is totally covered by these judgement. There is no merit in the Stay Application as well as in the Appal and hence respectfully following the ratio of the above cited judgement the appeal and the stay application are dismissed.
(order dictated and pronounced in the open court)