ORDER
P.C. Jain, Member (T)
1. The question involved in this matter is regarding the admis-sibility of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The goods are:-
1. Wires and Cables, and
2. Vibration Controller
2. The lower appellate authority has held that the aforesaid goods are entitled to the Modvat credit as capital goods under the aforesaid rule. Hence, this appeal by the Revenue.
3. The Learned JDR, Shri A.M. Tilak submits that both the aforesaid articles do not have any function for producing and processing any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance. Hence, the Modvat credit should not be made available to the aforesaid two articles. For this, he relies on two judgments namely, :-
1. 1997 (21) RLT 868 (J.K. Pharmachem)
2. 1997 (92) E.L.T. 237 [C.C.E. v. Fourts India Lab. (P) Ltd.]
3. As against the aforesaid contentions, the learned Consultant Shri S.K. Gadhok submits that so far as wires and cables are concerned, it has been held by a series of judgments that this commodity would be entitled to Modvat credit on capital goods under Rule 57Q. As regards the Vibration Controllers, he submits that this is also essential for manufacturing the final product. In his support he relies on the following judgments :-
i. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut v. Modi Xerox Ltd. – 1996 (88) E.L.T. 530 (T)
ii. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur -1996 (88) E.L.T. 785 (T)
iii. In RE : Kilburn Chemical Ltd. (Commissioner Appeals) – 1996 (88) E.L.T. 598
iv. Associated Cement Companies v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh -1998 (97) E.L.T. 379 (T)
v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad -1996 (87) E.L.T. 258 (T)
vi. M.F. (D.R.) Circular No. 276/110/96-TRU, dated 2-12-1996 – 1996 (88) E.L.T. 756
vii. Commissioner of Central Excise v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works – 1991 (55) E.L.T. 444 (S.C.)
viii. Jindal Strips v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi -1997 (94) E.L.T. 315 (T)
ix. Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur -1997 (73) E.L.T. 713 (T)
x. Morval Vinyle Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut -1997 (90) E.L.T. 361 (T) xi. C.C.E., Meerut v. Uttam Industries Engg. Pvt. Ltd. -1996 (86) E.L.T. 498 (T).
4. I have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both the sides. I have gone through the impugned order. I agree with the findings of the lower appellate authority that both the articles are essential for producing the final product. But for their use, final products would not have been manufactured and could not have been manufactured. They are parts of the plant. Hence, I dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.