ORDER
G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. The dispute relates to following items :-
1. Semi finished product i.e. Roughly shaped forgings.
2. Spacer Type coupling for water pumps (part.)
3. Panel Board
4. Water Ringh Vacuum Pump and its accessories set.
Whether they are eligible capital goods in terms of Rule 57Q to avail the modvat credit is an issue to be considered in this appeal.
2. As regards the first item i.e. roughly shaped forgings, Shri S.K. Gadhok, ld. Consultant submitted that the item as such can be used as a machinery part without any further process and in spite of the explanation offered by the assessee, this position was not accepted.
3. Shri T.A. Arunachalam, ld. JDR drew my attention to the finding portion of the Commissioner wherein it was observed that the appellants have not produced any evidence, documentary or otherwise, that the product rough shaped, semi finished product for shaft did not require any further process beyond the stage of proof machining and thereby ready to be used as ‘machine part of the shaft.
4. In the absence of any evidence as pointed out by the JDR and in view of findings given by the Commissioner, I am of the view that this issue will have to be re-examined by the Commissioner. Accordingly, I direct the Commissioner to examine this limited issue after providing an opportunity to the appellants to substantiate their claim in support of their contention that the item as such can be used without any further process of machining.
5. As regards remaining items, I find that eligibility of Modvat credit in respect of 2 to 4 has already been considered and concluded by the decision of the Tribunal particularly in the case of C.C.E., Coimbatore v. Sri Krishna Paper Industries reported in 1999 (105) E.L.T. 431 (T), C.C.E., Coimbatore v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 75 (T) and the larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd., reported in 32 RLT 379. Following the ratio of the aforesaid decision, I do not find any justification to deny the modvat credit in respect of the items 2 to 4. Accordingly, I hold that modvat credit is permissible in respect of the items 2 to 4. With these findings, the appeal is disposed of in the above terms.