C.C.E., INDORE Vs. BAJAJ TEMPO LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents manufacture Light Commercial Motor Vehicles (LCV) and Parts thereof falling under Chapter Heading 87 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They availed modvat credit facility as provided under Rule 57 -A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. They also availed the modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,17,160.28 on the input items - "Tool kit and spot welding electrodes" under the provisions of Rule 57 -A. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Divn -II, Indore vide his Order dt. 11.2.92 denied them the credit on these items and ordered for the recovery of the above stated amount. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Bhopal vide his Order dt. 31.10.2000 allowed the appeal of the party by setting aside the order passed by the lower authority.

(2.) The Revenue are in appeal against the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri A.K. Jain, JDR for the appellants. The respondents are not represented, but they have sent a letter dt. 16.4.2001 submitting may be decided on merits. They have also enclosed their -written submissions. I have considered the submissions made before me. The Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing the modvat credit on the Tool Kits has relied on the decision of the CEGAT in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune reported in 1996 (88) ELT 355 (T), in which, it is held that the "jack assemblies and tool kits" supplied along with the motor vehicle are inputs as contemplated in Rule 57 -A of the C.Excise rules and not excluded by Clause (1A) of the explanation to that rule. The Tribunal in another decision in the case of Wheels India Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai reported in 200 (122) ELT 875 (T) have further held that the modvat credit on "spot welding electrodes" as inputs is admissible. The only plea raised in the Revenue appeal is that a Reference Application filed by the Department in respect of the decision in the case of Bajaj auto Ltd. (supra) is referred to Hon'ble High Court. However, the fact that a Reference Petition is pending consideration by the Hon'ble High Court in itself cannot be the ground not to follow to well settled proposition.

(3.) In view of the ratio of the above cited decisions of Tribunal, I am of the view that there is no merit in the Revenue's appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.