CCE, CHANDIGARH Vs. JCT LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has extended capital goods credit to the following items:

(2.) According to the Learned Departmental Representative the items in question were specifically covered only with effect from 23.7.96 and, therefore, during the period when credit was availed, they cannot be considered as capital goods and the specific introduction of these items under Rule 57Q cannot operate with retrospective effect. On the other hand, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the respondent that the items fell within the definition of capital goods even as it stood during the period when credit was taken and further, the Hon'ble Madras High Court has answered the reference in the case of SIV Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Coimbatore 2001 (129) ELT 48 (Mad), holding that the fact that certain items such as wires and cables have not been specifically mentioned in clause (a) or (b) or (c) of Rule 57Q does not, on that score alone, imply that it was meant to be excluded. Learned Counsel submits that credit had been rightly availed and, therefore, there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order which requires to be upheld.

(3.) On considering the submission of both sides and perusing Larger Bench decision in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Coimbatore 1999 (108) ELT 47 and CCE, Indore Vs Surya Roshni Ltd. 2001 (128) ELT 293 as well as Hon'ble Madras High Court judgment cited supra, I hold that all the items on which credit has been taken are clearly covered by the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q. Accordingly, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order, uphold the same and reject this appeal.