JUDGMENT
Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical)
1. Appeal taken up for disposal, after waiving deposit with the consent of the departmental representative.
2. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the duty paid on an air conditioner, oven and ultrasonic cleaner that the appellant used in its factory. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal before him on the ground that these goods were not used for producing or processing any goods or for bring about any change in any of the substance for the manufacture of final product, and that therefore they were not capital goods within the meaning of Rule 57Q.
3. In its decision in Jawahar Mills Ltd v. CCE 1999 (108) ELT 47 the larger bench of the Tribunal has affirmed the view by other benches that goods which are not by themselves used to produce or process any goods or brings about any change in any of the substance for the manufacture of the final product, but are still required in the factory, in order to produce the final product, are capital goods within the meaning of Rule 57Q, as it then stood. The requirement by the appellant of the oven and ultrasonic cleaner in the appellants’ factory in connection with the manufacture of the product is not denied by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore these gates were capital goods and the duty paid on them is available as credit.
4. The same position would apply to the air conditioner if it were shown that it was required in the factory for any process in connection with the manufacture of the final product. The appellant contends that it is necessary that the air cooled by the air conditioner is required to cool the films of molten polypropylene as it emerges from the spinnerets. In my view, however, this point requires further support in the form of technical evidence. Therefore while I allow the appeal, and set aside the impugned order with regard to oven and ultrasonic cleaner, I remand to the adjudicating authority the issue of eligibility to modvat credit of the duty paid on air conditioner. He shall consider the evidence that the appellant may produce before him within three months from the receipt of this order to show that use in its factory of air conditioner was necessary for the manufacture of the final product, and pass orders on the eligibility to credit in accordance with law.