CCE Vs. PRATAP RAJASTHAN SPL. STEEL LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order -in -appeal dated 31.12.2002 of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing modvat credit in respect of the Ramming Mass.

(2.) THE learned Counsel has contended that the goods in question i.e. Ramming Mass were not eligible for modvat credit as input for having been not used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product by the respondents. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal. But the bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the Asstt. Commissioner firstly considered the Ramming Mass as input of the appellants for the manufacture of the final products, but later on vide corrigendum dated 19.7.2002 directed that the word 'input' should be read as 'capital goods' and Rule 57 -Q and Rule 57 -U be read in place of Rule 57 -A and 57 -I. It is thus quite evident that the Asstt. Commissioner has disallowed the modvat credit to the respondents on the Ramming Mass as 'capital goods', But the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly allowed the same by referring to the explanation appended to Rule 57 -Q as amended vide Notification dated 16.3.1995 and further substituted vide notification dated 23.7.1996 vide which the Ramming Mass had been taken as a refractory material and eligible for modvat credit. He has also followed the ratio of the law laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Nahar International Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh 2000 (123) ELT 767 (T); and CCE, Chandigarh v. Bhusan Indus. Ltd. ; wherein the Tribunal has consistently ruled that Ramming Mass are capital goods and eligible for modvat credit under Rule 57 -Q. Even the Apex Court has also in the case of CCE, Bangalore v. Escorts Mahle Ltd. 2003 (108) ECR 631 (SC), has so ruled. Therefore, in my view, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) does not suffer from any illegality and as such the same is upheld. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being without any merit.