ORDER
P.C. Jain, Vice President
1. The following items are in dispute before us on which Modvat credit has been disallowed by the authorities below :-
(a) Electrical Wires and Cables,
(b) Forged Steel Flanges,
(c) Electrical Fan,
(d) Transport Trolley,
(e) Fab Steel Component,
(f) ESP Section & Sheet,
(g) Battery Charger,
(h) Transformer,
(i) Plastic Tubes,
(j) Piston Valve,
(k) Strapping Tools.
2. Learned Advocate at the outset does not press for Modvat credit on piston valve for the reason that the credit had been taken on an extra copy of invoice. As regards the other items, he submits that all these items are parts of “capital goods” as defined in Explanation to Rule 57Q, as it existed at the relevant time. He also brings to our notice the detailed functions and uses of these goods given by them in their reply to the show cause notice before the adjudicating authority and also in their appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). On the basis of the said material, he points out that all these are “capital goods” in the light of Larger Bench of this Tribunal’s judgment in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 47. He, therefore, submits that the appeal be allowed with consequential relief to the appellants except to Modvat credit on piston valves.
3. Opposing the contentions, learned SDR, Shri Satnam Singh points out that the uses and functions of the “capital goods” have not been commented upon by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is not possible to know as to which of the goods relate to which machine in the absence of any such finding in respect of each of the items involved, by the Commissioner (Appeals). Proper course for the Tribunal would be to remand the matter and to decide the case in the light of Jawahar Mills’ case, supra.
4. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned SDR. Uses and functions and the specific machine where these items are to be used have been given by the appellants right from the very beginning i.e. at the time of reply to the show cause notice as also in the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). It would, therefore, not be possible for us to remand the matter as prayed by the learned SDR.
5. After having gone through the various functions and uses of the various goods involved in this appeal on record before us in the aforesaid two documents, namely, reply to the show cause notice and the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), we are satisfied that all these goods are “capital goods” in the light of Tribunal’s Larger Bench judgment in the case of Jawahar Mitts, supra. Consequently, we allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants except the Modvat credit on piston valves which have not been pressed by the learned Advocate for the appellants.