DSM SUGAR MILLS LTD Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Allahabad made in Order -in -Appeal 37 -CE/ALLD -97, dt. 20.2.1997 whereunder he declined the appeal of the appellants upholding the Order -in -Original holding that the twisted bars and rods which made platforms were not entitled to mod -vat credit under Rule 57Q as no duty being paid by the appellant on the platform.

(2.) THE appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Sugar and Molasses following under items 1701.31,1701.39 and 1703.10 of the CETA and were availing modvat credit facilities under Rules 57A and 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. In the show cause notice dated 27.4.1995 modvat credit on bars and rods were denied on the ground that they did not come within the purview of the capital goods under Rule 57Q. A reply was filed before the Jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner who did not agree with the contentions of the appellant. An appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), Allahabad, who by the impugned order declined to entertain the plea of the appellant and upheld the Order -in -Original as stated in the first paragraph of the order. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) IT is contended by the assessee appellant through Mr. Sharma Vice -President of the appellant that when the platform the final product cannot be manufactured it is the admitted facts that bars and rods were used in the manufacturing of the platform which finding of the Commissioner has not been questioned by the department. It is therefore vehemently contended by the appellant that on the basis of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Mehra Brothers v. Joint Commissioner Officer reported in 1995 (61) ECR 204 and judgement of the Tribunal in the assessee'e own case in Appeal No. E/698 final order of which has allowed the appeal of the assessee where in respect of modvat credit on MS Rods plates HR plates shapes and sections used as raw material for a new boiler have been entertained. He therefore vehemently contends that in the instant case where the bars and rods have been used for the manufacture of platform and the Commissioner in the impugned order has wrongly held that bars and rods were not entitled for the modvat credit. He placed before me in a forceful manner that the order passed by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case is binding on me. He tries to distinguish the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Malvika Steel Ltd. v. CCE which held that the cement and steel structure used in erection of blast furnace were not entitled to modvat credit. Mr. Sharma states that here it is a case of wires and rods used in the ship which is finally used for the manufacture of the final product.