CCE, CHANDIGARH Vs. OSWAL FATS & OILS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents had taken modvat credit on various capital goods and inputs during April -May, 1996. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner disallowed such credit to the extent of of Rs.1,47,159.28. But the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and allowed the modvat credit taken on all the goods except Data processing machines and unit. In the present appeal of the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant's challenge is found to have been restricted to four capital goods, namely, non -alloy steel rounds, Copper conductor cables, ACSR conductors and pinion shaft. One of the grounds of this appeal is that the impugned goods do not qualify to be capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules inasmuch as, according to the Revenue, the goods were not used in producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final products. The Revenue has drawn support to this ground from the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s Shanmugaraja Spinning Mills [1997 (89) ELT 84]. The second and the last ground of this appeal is that Notification No. 11/95 -CE(NT) dated 16.3.95 and Notification No. 14/96 -CE(NT) dated 23.7.96 had no retrospective effect and, therefore, the goods could not be considered to fall in the category of eligible capital goods in terms of the Explanation to Rule 57Q.

(2.) I have examined the above ground as well as the impugned order. I have also heard both sides.

(3.) Ld. JDR, Sh. S.C. Pushkarna has reiterated the above grounds and prayed for setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Ld. Advocate Sh. Harbans Singh has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the issue whether the above goods qualified to be eligible capital goods for modvat credit under Rule 57Q stands settle din favour of the assessees by the Tribunal Larger Bench decision in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [1999 (108) ELT 47]. Ld. Advocate has further pointed out that the decision of the 3 - Member Larger Bench in Jawahar Mills has received the approval of a 5 - Member Larger Bench in the case of Surya Roshni Ltd. [2001 (128) ELT 293].