ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The common question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility for consideration as capital goods for purpose of credit various goods in used in the appellant’s factory, engaged in the manufacture of dyes and dye intermediate. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) had denied the credit on the ground that the goods were not used to produce or process any goods or bring about any change in any substance in the manufacture of the final product as required in Rule 57Q, and hence not capital goods.
2. The appeal is absent and unrepresented. I have read the memorandum of appeal and heard the departmental representative.
3. The items in question in the appeal are electrical motor, push button, electrical switches, gear box, spare for centrifugal pumps, rotary dryer, heating element and sublimation tester. It is not disputed that except for the last three other items are to be used in the appellant’s factory for purpose integral for the manufacture of finished product. By application of the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment that CCE v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. 2001 (132) ELT 3 these goods would qualify for consideration as capital goods.
4. The Commissioner (Appeals) records that the rota dyes, sublimation tester and heating element are used in the appellant’s laboratory for purpose of quality control. The rotary dryer is used to dry the cloth although the dye to be tested is spread, the heating element used to heat the material and the sublimation test for sublimation of the dye or dye intermediate for being tested. I do not find it possible to accept the departmental representative’s contention that the items used to quality control would not be used as capital goods. The laboratory in question no doubt is not directly a place where goods are manufactured; but is an essential adjunct and certainly part of the factory of the appellant. The appellant would not be able to ensure manufacture of a saleable product acceptable by the customer without use of quality control methods and equipment necessary for this purpose. It would therefore be simplistic to say that items used for quality control are not essential for the manufacture of the finished product. There goods therefore in my opinion do not qualify for a different treatment than various other items of machinery etc. in the appellant’s factory. They would have to be considered capital goods.
5. The goods under consideration in appeal E/1281/98 consist of electrical motor, electrical switches, spares of a pump and anti-corrosive equipment. The first three clearly qualify as capital goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) has described the function of the anti corrosive equipment as pumping corrosive substance. It is clearly equipment which has special anti corrosive properties for dealing with the often corrosive material that is in the appellant’s factory. There is no denial that it is necessary for the manufacture of the finished product. It would be entitled to credit.
6. The order of the Commissioner impugned in E/1282/98 is none other than order impugned in appeal E/1281/98. The appeal does not explain this discrepancy and the appellant is not present before me to explain this. I have therefore no alternative but to dismiss appeal E/1282/98.
7. Appeals E/1280, 1281/98 allowed. E/1282/98 dismissed.