CCE, JAIPUR Vs. RISHABH DEV TEXTITLES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Jaipur) for referring the following question of law, arising out of Tribunal's Final Order No. A/294/98 -NB dt. 30 -3 -98 "Does the Tribunal have the power to allow the benefit of modvat credit to the goods under Rule 57Q of CE Rules, 1944 which are otherwise not specifically mentioned in the rule itself -

(2.) WHEN the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Respondents, M/s Rishabhdev Textile,s inspite of notice. I also observe that no one has appeared on behalf of the Respondents on 22nd December 2000 when the application was posted for hearing. I, therefore, take up the reference application for decision after hearing Shri S.C. Pushkarna, Ld. DR, and after perusing the records.

(3.) THE Appellate Tribunal under Order No. A/29498 -NB has allowed capital goods credit in respect of Voltage Stabilise/Voltage Regulator under Rule 57Q following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Jaipur Vs. Shjanti Synthetics 1997 (20) RLT 689(CEGAT). It has been mentioned in the reference application that the definition of capital goods as given in Explanation to Rule 57Q does not cover the impugned good as these are not used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about change in any substances for the manufacture of final products. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of CCE Coimbatore Vs. Shanmugaraja Spinning Mills Ltd. 1997(89) ELT 84(T). It has also been urged that a Voltage Regulator/Stabiliser is not independent instruments which regulates electric current so that machinery engaged in the production process may not be affected due to lower or higher voltage and that the regulator may be essential for the safety of the machines but it does not make it eligible for capital goods credit. I have considered the submissions and perused the records. Explanation 1 to Rule 57Q define the capital goods as under: -