COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. NARMADA SUGAR LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order -in -appeal dated 10/13 -5 -2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the Order -in -Original and allowed Modvat credit to the respondents in respect of the capital goods, detailed in the show cause notice.

(2.) THE respondents availed Modvat credit of Rs. 15,000/ - under Rule 57Q of the Rules on the structural beams in April, 1994 and they were served with show cause notice for disallowing the Modvat credit on the ground that they were used for making platform. The respondents contested the correctness of the show cause notice by alleging that platform had been used by them for installation of the machinery meant for production of the final product and as such, the structures used in the construction of the platform were eligible for Modvat credit. The adjudicating authority disallowed the Modvat credit on the ground that the goods were used for the construction of the platform which is civil structure. The Commissioner (Appeals), on appeal had reversed that order by holding that the structures including beams being very much part of the capital goods, were eligible for Modvat credit. He has followed the ratio of law laid down in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Steel Strips Ltd. - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 49.

(3.) THE learned SDR has contended that structural beams having been used in the civil construction (platform) were not eligible for Modvat credit and that the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) suffers from legal infirmity and as such, deserves to be reversed. She has also contended that ratio of law laid in Steel Strips Ltd., relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals), is not attracted to the facts of the present case and mover, it has been earlier also distinguished in the case of Devidayal Aluminium Industries (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut - 2000 (121) E.L.T. 114.