High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Commissioner Central Excise, Central Exc v. M/s Gujrat Ambuja Cements Limited, Distr - CEA-9-2006  RD-P&H 8978 (19 October 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CEA No.9 of 2006
Date of decision:10.10.2006
Commissioner Central Excise, Central Excise House, Ludhiana.
M/s Gujrat Ambuja Cements Limited, District Ropar.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, Assistant Solicitor General of India, for the appellant.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order of the Tribunal allowing Modvat credit of Rs.61572/-, rejecting the argument that the goods in question being used for assembly of fire hydrant system falling under Chapter 84, were liable to be excluded from the definition of "capital goods" under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short, 'the Rules').
2. The assessee availed Modvat credit during the period 4/98 to 4/99, which was allowed by the adjudicating authority but disallowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the goods falling under heading 84.24 were specifically excluded from the purview of Modvat Scheme during the relevant period. The Tribunal restored the view taken by the adjudicating authority observing:-
"....but from the Order-in-Original, it is evident that the capital goods in dispute, had been procured by the appellants from different suppliers at different times under the cover of duty paid invoices, which did not describe the goods as parts of fire fighting equipment.
Rather the invoices contained independent specific chapter sub-heading; such as Sub Heading 8408 for CEA No.9 of 2006 2
I.C.Engine No.8481.00 for valves and No.8537 for electrical control panel. The goods of one of these sub- headings stands excluded under Rule 57Q..."
3. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue.
4. Learned counsel for the revenue has not been able to show that the goods in question fall under the excluded entry in Rule 57Q of the Rules. Submission made was that the goods in question were capital goods as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of C.EX.,Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills Limited, 2001(132) ELT 3, Para 4.
5. This contention cannot be accepted. Mere fact that the goods may be capital goods, was not enough for invoking the exclusionary clause and Rule 57Q unless the goods sought to be excluded, are covered by entry specified in Sr.No.2 of the table appended to Rule 57Q of the Rules. In the present case, a specific finding has been recorded by the Tribunal, as referred to above, that the goods do not fall under the specific exclusion clause.
6. No substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel)
Oct.10, 2006 (Rajesh Bindal)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.