MADRAS ALUMINIUM COMPANY Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are 3 appeals of the same assessee from 3 different orders by which Modvat Credit on the items noted herein below has been denied. There is no dispute about the filing of the declaration seeking Modvat Credit. However, the doubt raised is as to whether the declaration filed seeking the Modvat Credit benefit on consumer items can be considered as a declaration for claiming the benefit for Capital Goods.

(2.) On this ground, Ld. Counsel Shri M.V. Raman submits that the issue is settled by Larger Bench rendered in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Modi Ruber Limited and Ors. reported in 2000 (38) RLT 718 (CEGAT -LB). The said judgment also, allows the Modvat Credit on lubricating oils and greases, which were inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of final products. Although, both the items had been declared as Capital Goods under Rule 57Q but have been held to be inputs under Rule 57A and credit was held to be admissible though declaration was not in terms of Rule 57A. Ld. Counsel files a chart showing the items involved, their vise and their eligibility have been upheld in the citations noted below:

(3.) Ld. Counsel Shri M. Venkataraman show that each of items involved in the above charts is covered by the judgments cited by him. He submits that the appeals are required to be allowed and Modvat Credit granted in terms of the Larger Bench judgments and the citations shown in the table extracted above.