MANSURPUR SUGAR MILLS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, credit on the following items used by the appellants herein in the manufacture of sugar has been disallowed for the reason that the items were specified as Capital goods only with effect from 16 -3 -1995 and therefore, during the period in dispute which is prior to 16 -3 -1995, they were not covered by the definition of Capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 :

(2.) SHRI Alok Arora, learned Advocate submits that all the above items are used in the manufacture of appellants' final product; that their use as such, is not disputed; that the items are in the nature of plant/machine/machinery used to produce or process goods or to bring about change in any substance in the manufacture of the final products and that the items in dispute also stood covered by Clause (a) and (b) of Explanation I to Rule 57Q, as it stood during the relevant period and it is not correct to conclude that the items came under the purview of Rule 57Q only with effect from 16 -3 -1995 when they were specifically enumerated under a notification. He relies upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 47 in support of his contention that all the items set out above are entitled to credit as capital goods even prior to 16 -3 -1995.

(3.) THE learned DR Shri Kilania reiterates the findings contained in the adjudication order and the Appellate order.