DLF CEMENT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed against the decision of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi made in Or -der -in -Appeal No. 411 -C.E./JPR/97, dated 30 -12 -1997. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cement falling under Chapter 25 of the schedule under Tariff Heading under Chapter 25. After the Modvat credit was introduced, the appellant filed declaration in terms of Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rules and claimed such credit of the duty paid on capital goods used for production or process of the final product. A show cause notice dated 27 -9 -1996 was issued denying Modvat credit on goods in respect of structures and parts of fire extinguishers and parts of programmable logic control (page 15). On 22 -10 -1996 a reply to show cause notice was given by the assessee/appellant. By Order -in -Original No. 131/91, the Asstt. Commissioner rejected the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,68,133/ - consisting of Rs. 1,33,951/ - relating to structure and parts, Rs. 26,982/ - on parts of programmable logic controller and Rs. 7,200/ - on fire extinguishers as not entitled to the Modvat credit, against which an appeal was filed and the appellate authority i.e. the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi by the impugned order confirmed the Order -in -Original following the judgment of the CEGAT in J.K. Pharmachem Ltd. v. C.C.E., Trichi [1998 (102) E.L.T. 488]. In the confirming order the appellate authority had held that regarding parts of electrical control, AC, did not say in his order how the equipment was used and whether functioning of the same was integrated with the lying in the product line and the equipment was used in the production line. He also held in the case it was found by the AC that equipment was integrated the appellant would be entitled to the credit so far as the programmable logic controller and he remanded the matter as far as the other two items viz. fire extinguishers and the structure he held against the appellant. Hence the present appeal.

(2.) BOTH Shri Vyas for the assessee and Shri Arunachalam ld. DR for the department argued with marked ability.

(3.) SHRI Vyas in a lucid manner argued that the goods in question are cable trays and they were accessories used in the cement plant. As far as wires and cables are concerned he argued that the matter has been settled recently by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 47 para 39 thereof. As far as the fire extinguishers are concerned he also stated that the observations in the said case will hold good.