GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point to be considered in this case is whether refractory mortar is an input to avail modvat credit in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. Party remained absent. However they have requested to decide the matter on merits based upon written submission. In the written submission they have given technical write -up on the of use of Refractory Mortars. As can seen from the technical write -up, the refractory mortars are used in their baking furnaces. They have also submitted that merely because furnace is an equipment, the refractory mortar used in such furnace cannot be categorized as machinery. The point that part of a machinery is an input has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of Union Carbine India Ltd Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta reported in 1996 (86) LET 613 (Tribunal). Further it was also submitted that the issue involved herein has already been covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Modella Steel Alloys Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, reported in 1999 (108) ELT 463 (T).

(2.) HEARD Smt. Radha Arun, appearing for revenue. She reiterated that refractory mortar can not be considered as an input. She said that aforesaid decisions are not applicable as the item dealt with therein is different.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. On going through the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that there is lot of force in the written submission placed before the Tribunal. Apart from the case law referred to by the party, I find that the very item has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore Vs. Saurabh Metals Pvt Ltd reported in 2000 (116) ELT 56 (T) wherein it was clearly held that refractory morter entitled for benefit of modvat credit being input under Rule 57 A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. While deciding the issue in that case the Tribunal has followed the earlier decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of Commissioner Vs. Steel Strips Alloys Ltd reported in 199 (83) ECT 583 (T -F) and Commissioner Vs. TISCO Ltd reported in 1999 (34) RLT 646 (T -F). In the facts and circumstances and following the ratio of the decisions referred to above, I accept the contention of the party and in result the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.