COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, Vs. INDIAN ACRYLIC LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents manufacture Acrylic Staple Fibre falling under Sub -heading 5501.30. They are availing the facility of MODVAT credit on capital goods under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Jallandar Division Under a number of orders passed by him denied them the MODVAT credit totally amounting to Rs, 1,300,436/ - availed by them on the items as capital goods under rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He also imposed a penalty amounting to Rs. 2 lakhs on them.

(2.) THE party filed appeals against the above orders and the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh vide his common order dated 29.4.99 allowed the appeals of the party setting aside the orders passed by the original authority.

(3.) THE Revenue are in appeal against the above order of Commissioner (Appeals). Heard Shri Swatantra Kumar, JDR for the Revenue and Shri K.K. Anad, Advocate for the respondents. It is contended in the Revenue appeals in respect of items subject matter of consideration that the same are no eligible for the availment of the MODVAT credit as capital goods under the definition provided under rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is also contended that these are not used for producing or processing of any goods or bringing about of any change in respect of the final products. It is observed that the Larger Bench of the CEGAT in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore Vs. Surya Roshin Ltd., reported in 2001 (128) E.L.T. 293 (Tri.LB) an consideration of the definition of the capital tools under Rule 57Q have held that the machine, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances whatever be the category to which the goods belongs would fall within the definition of capital goods, if,