PEARL ENGINEERING CO. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard counsel for the parties, we frame the following substantial question of law :-

(2.) The appellant was not successful in the first appeal and approached the Tribunal, who by their order dated 9-10-2002 passed an order of remand.

(3.) In the second round, the Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 15-1-2003 held that the machine in question was not covered by the definition of "capital goods" as defined in the original Explanation to Rule 57Q of the Rules. He observed that there was a subsequent amendment vide notification dated 16-3-1995 and after the said date, the term "capital goods" had been defined broadly. By another amendment, the term "capital goods" was even expanded further.