COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. CHERAN SPINNERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against Order -in -Appeal No. 228/2002 (ADK) (CBE) dated 13.11.2002 by which the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order passed by the lower adjudicating authority by allowing the appeal filed by the respondent -assessee before him. while setting aside the order of the lower adjudicating authority and allowing the appeal filed by the respondent -assessee the Commissioner (Appeals) in his findings held that the material handling equipments have been held in the earlier decisions of the Tribunal need not to be used for producing or processing of goods but used in this factory and hence eligible for credit. In this connection ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of CCE Vs. Jawahar Mills Ltd. - 2001 (132) ELT 3 (SC) wherein it has been held that the goods specified in explanation 1 (c) for availing modvat credit on capital goods need not be used in the manufacture of final product and the only requirement is that they should be used in the factory of production. He also relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Parle Beverages Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2000 (124) ELT 803 (T) wherein the Tribunal has held that the plastic crates used for transporting the bottles of aerated waters are eligible for modvat credit.

(2.) Aggrieved by this order the revenue has come in appeal on the ground that during the relevant period only the following goods have been listed as capital goods in respect of which credit can be availed in terms of rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:

(3.) Appearing on behalf of the revenue, ld. DR Shri A. Jayachandran while reiterating the grounds in the appeal submitted that 'plastic crates' cannot be termed as capital goods for availing credit under rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. He also submitted that in the case of Parle Beverages Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2000 (124) ELT 803 relied by the Commissioner (appeals) the eligibility of plastic crates were decided in favour of assessee as inputs, since they were used as packing materials for the transportation of the finished goods i.e. aerated water and they were not classified as capital goods. Whereas in the present case the impugned item viz., 'plastic crates' are not used as packing materials but are used for carrying semi finished cops from one department to other within the spinning mill. Therefore the judgment in the matter of Parle Beverages Ltd. is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He therefore submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner may be restored.