TRIVENI ENGG. AND INDUS. LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Rajesh Chibber, ld. Advocate pleaded that the appellants are receiving the proof machined forged shaft for use in Mill Roller as item of capital goods and took credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. The department has raised objection that before shafts are used as part of Mill Roller, some refining/finishing process was required to be undertaken on these and denied credit on these goods. He stated that for fitting the shafts in the machines some process was required, which was done by the appellants and on this ground, credit cannot be denied to the appellants. He relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE, Meerut v. U.P. Stage Sugar Corporation where in identical situation, credit was allowed. He also relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of India Cements Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad -III where it was held that H.M. Plates used for manufacture of machinery/spares in the factory are entitled for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules.

(2.) SHRI P.M. Rao, ld. JDR reiterated the grounds taken by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has taken ground for denying the credit that the proof machined forged shafts cannot be considered as a part of mill rollers, unless it is subjected to a certain degree of refining/machining, without which it cannot be used as such and he relied on the CEGAT's decision, where credit was disallowed on Forged Tail Bar, treating them as construction material.

(3.) HOWEVER , in the present case, I find that the issue has already been decided by the Tribunal in the case of U.P. State Sugar Corpn. (supra) allowing credit on mill roller shafts after grooving and shelling of cast iron on the shafts for making them useable in sugar factory. In the present case, proof machined shaft has been received for using in the machinery. For fitting it into the Mill roller, some process was required to be undertaken to make them suitable to be fitted in the Mill roller. Such activity cannot disallow the appellants from taking the credit. Therefore, following the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in case of CCE, Meerut v. U.P. State Sugar Corporation (supra), the appeal is allowed and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside.