COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, Vs. PROCTER & GAMBLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against the common Order -in -Appeal dated 30.3.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had upheld the order -in -original passed by the Assistant Commissioner allowing modvat credit of the disputed amount to the respondents on the goods in question by treating the same as capital goods falling under Rule 57 Q of the Central Excise Rules.

(2.) LD . SDR has at the very outset contended that the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deserved to be set aside as it has not been passed in consonance of ratio of the law laid down by five Member Larger Bench of the Tribunal in CCE vs. Surya Roshni [2000 (142) RLT 817]. and the matter be sent back to adjudicating authority for deciding the modvat credit claim of the respondents afresh in the light of that judgement.

(3.) LD . Counsel for the respondents has no objection if the matter is sent back to the adjudicating authority for deciding whether the goods in question fall within the definition of 'capital goods' under rule 57 Q read with Explanation I appended to that rule.