C.C.E., DELHI Vs. HINDUSTAN NATIONAL GLASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents manufacture 'Class Bottles, Glass Tumblers, C.I Moulds and C.I. Castings' falling under Ch. 70 and 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak vide his Order dt. 15.5.97 disallowed the modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 25,746/ - to the respondents, availed by them on the following items as capital goods under Rule 57 -Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

(2.) THE party filed an appeal and Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi vide Order dt. 28.6.99 allowed the appeal of the party by setting aside the order passed by the Original Authority.

(3.) THE present appeal is against the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri J. Singh, JDR for the appellants. The respondents are not represented despite the notice. It is contended in the Revenue appeal that the item 'Reinforced Cut of wheels' is used for shaping and cutting up ceramic bricks used for Glass Furnace; Zircon Bricks are used fro lining of furnace and Ramming Mass is used for bonding of bricks. It is stated that these are not the capital goods covered under Rule 57 -Q. It is further stated that these are not the capital goods for producing or processing or bringing about any change in substance in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. I have considered these submissions. It is observed that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. Indore vs. Surya Roshni Ltd. reported in 2001 (128) ELT 293 (T -LB) have laid down the detailed guide -lines with regard to the interpretation of the term 'capital goods' as defined under Rule 57 -Q. It is felt that the subject has not received the required consideration by both the lower authorities and it would call for de -novo consideration. In the light of the above cited decision of the Larger Bench of theCEGAT, the order passed by lower authority, therefore, is set aside and the matter remanded to the Original Authority for passing a fresh order. In view of the above observation, respondents shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing before arriving at final view in the matter.