ORDER
Shri S.L.Peeran
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No.1/99 (MDU) (MJ)dated 16.3.99 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the impugned machinery is not entitled for the benefit of Modvat credit as capital goods in the light of the earlier judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of CCE Vs. Sengunthan Spinning Mills [1998 (99) ELT 409 (T)]. The party has requested the case to be decided on merits.
2. It is contended by the appellants that the facts of the case relied by the Commissioner is totally different and does not tally with their facts. They contend that the Commissioner has not appreciated their contention that the subject capital goods namely High Speed Draw Frame is not used in the Carding Machine but used subsequent to Carding and combing operation as illustrated by the diagram given by them in the appeal memo. They contended that the order is not a speaking order and Commissioner has wrongly followed the judgment.
3. Heard Ld. D.R.Shri.S. Kannan who submits that in similar matters, the Tribunal has rendered even Revenue appeals for de novo consideration to re-examine the issue. He cited the case of CCE Madurai Vs. Rajaratha Mills Ltd. by Final Order No. 75/2001 dated 9.1.2001, wherein in a similar matter pertaining to claim of Modvat credit on Speed Draw Frames and other items in terms of Rule 57 R(5) and Rule 57 S which are described as preparatory machines and spares meant for manufacture of carded cotton classifiable elsewhere under Sub Heading 5202.00 was remanded for de novo consideration in the light of the earlier judgment of the Tribunal as rendered in CCE Vs. Thuran Supinning Mills as reported in 2000 (117) ELT 699. He does not object for remand of this case as similar Revenue appeals have been allowed by way of remand for de novo consideration.
4. On a careful consideration and perusal of the impugned order and also the grounds of appeal and copy of the final order No.75/2001 dated 9.1.2001 rendered in the case of CCE Madurai Vs. Rajaratna Mills Ltd., I find that all similar appeals filed by Revenue has since ben remanded for de novo consideration in the light of the findings rendered in Thuran Spinning Mills (supra). Therefore, in keeping with the judicial discipline, the impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to original authority for de novo consideration to re-decide the case in the light of the observation already made. The original authority shall as far as possible take up all the appeals remanded on similar issue and decide the case de novo after grant of an opportunity of hearing to all the assessees. Thus this appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Pronounced & dictated in open Court)