ORDER
Shri S.L. Peeran
1. The assessee and revenue both have filed appeal and stay application against Order in Appeal No. 5/2000(H-I) (D) CD dt. 7.11.2000.
2. In this order, the Commissioner has rejected the claim of Modvat credit with regard to the item compressors and its accessories like stop valves and drive set installed in the factory for producing chilled water at 5 to 10 deg. c and chilled brine at -20 deg. To -30 deg. C and the same being used to cool the reactants.
3. Learned Consultant Shri G. Ramarao submits that the issue pertaining to grant of Modvat Credit on these item of capital goods has been decided in the larger bench case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner-199 (108) E.L.T.47 (Tribunal). West Region Bench also decided that the items in question are capital goods as in the case of Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Vs. Comm. of C.Ex., Mumbai-I, 2000(122) E.L.T.90(Tribunal) and in the case of Blue Cross Laboratories Ltd., Vs. Comm. of C.Ex, Goa 2000(120)E.L.T. 716 (Tribunal). The learned Consultant submits that this bench has also held in case of Madurai Coats Ltd., Vs. Comm. Of C.Ex. Trichy 2000(116) E.L.T. 577 (Tribunal) that the items are to be considered as capital goods. Therefore, he also relies on the judgment of North Region Bench, CC. Meerut Vs. Modi Xerox Ltd., wherein the revenue appeal was rejected. Revenue had challenged the grant of Modvat credit on chilled water coolant used for air handling unit meant for bringing down the temperature in the coating room. He submits this issue is covered one and therefore the stay and appeal be allowed.
4. Learned DR distinguishes the judgment and submits that the items cannot be treated as capital goods.
5. Learned DR submits that so far as the revenue appeal is concerned contention that the Commissioner was not justified in granting relief on Multimax Boilers in terms of rule 57 Q as they are not covered by the notification No. 11/95 CE (NT) dt. 16.3.95.
6. Learned Consultant in reply pointed out that the Commissioner has relied on the judgment of the Tribunal ie., of South Region Bench rendered in the case of Shri Sarvaraya Sugars Ltd., Vs. Comm. Of Ex. Guntur as reported in 1998 (103) R.L.T. 59 (Tribunal) He also relies on the judgment rendered by this bench in the case of Tapioca Products Vs. Comm. Of Central Excise, Cochin 1999(107) E.L.T. 545 (Tribunal) and submits that the issue is covered one and the revenue appeal and stay application should be rejected.
7. On a careful consideration of the submission made, we noticed that the issue in the assessee appeal is covered by the Larger Bench Judgment rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd., which is confirmed by the Apex court as reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T.(3). The Tribunal in their judgments cited by the Counsel (Supra) have clearly held that the items in question are covered within the definition of capital goods and the issue is fully covered with the ratio of the Larger Bench Judgment rendered in the case of Jawahar Mills. In view of the issue being totally covered we accept the prayer of the consultant to decide the stay application and appeal together applying the ratio of the noted judgment the stay application and appeal is allowed consequential relief if any.
8. In so far as the revenue appeal is concerned, we notice that the submissions made by the learned consultant is correct. The Tribunal has already decided this issue in the judgment cited by him (Supra). As the issue has reached finality and the Larger Bench Judgment of Jawahar Mills Ltd., also covers this issue, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in revenue’s appeal in so far as the relief of modvat credit granted on Multimax Boilers Granted by the Commissioner of Appeals and therefore the order on this is confirmed by rejecting the stay application and appeal filed by the revenue.
9. Thus, both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
(Pronounced & dictated in open court)