Judgment:
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 27 days for consideration of this Revenue appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 19/98 (H-III) C.E., dated 24-4-1998 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Heard Shri S. Kannan, learned JDR who submits that the delay was because the order of the Chief Commissioner, Hyderabad directing to file appeal to CEGAT was communicated to Commissionerate on 1-9-1998.
He further submitted that some time was involved as the Chief Commissioner's Office made reference to the Commissionerates at Bhubaneshwar, Calcutta and New Delhi to achieve uniformity of decision making in this review. He, therefore, submits that sufficient cause is available on record and the delay should be condoned.
3. Heard Shri Vinod Kumar, learned Advocate for the respondents who submits that if the delay is condoned, the appeal itself could be heard as this is a covered matter. He submits that the issue involves the availability of Modvat credit to certain spares and other goods namely Felt and bronze seive mesh. Learned Advocate submits that in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. as reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613 (Tribunal), which is a decision of the larger Bench, it has been held that felts, Phospher bronze, stainless steel wire cloth and wire mesh and dandy cloths used as parts in machine or machinery are eligible inputs under Rule 57A as they are not included by virtue of Clause (i) of Explanation to this Rule. He further submits that a similar view has been taken by the Northern Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Amrit Papers as reported in 1998 (102) E.L.T. 75 (Tribunal) which has also followed the larger Bench decision of Union Carbide of India Ltd. (supra). Learned Advocate therefore submits that the issue is no longer res integra and since the product in their case is also only felts and mesh, and as both are covered by these judgments, there is no doubt regarding the eligibility of these items as inputs under Rule 57A.4. We have carefully considered the submission on both sides as well as the records of the case. We find that the Revenue has made out sufficient case for condonation of delay of 27 days inasmuch as that the learned Chief Commissioner was industriously trying to ascertain the views of other Commissionerates on the merits of the case before authorising the review leading to the filing of the appeal. We feel that this is sufficient cause and therefore condone the delay of 27 days. We also find that there is a stay application of Revenue seeking stay of the operation of the Order-in-Appeal impugned. Since the issue lies on a short compass and is already covered by decision cited supra by learned Advocate, therefore the stay application is dismissed as infructuous as we are already going to consider the main appeal it-self.
5. Considering the main Appeal we find that the matter is no longer res integra inasmuch as the larger Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Union Carbide of India (supra) has already extensively considered this matter and the products in the instant appeal are similar to those considered in that judgments namely felts and bronze wire mesh. We also find that later the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Amrit Paper (supra) has applied the aforesaid decision of Union Carbide also and have come to a similar conclusion for similar products. We are therefore to respectfully apply the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to this case and find that there is no merit in the Revenue appeal which compels us to interfere with the Order-in-Appeal impugned. The Revenue appeal is accordingly dismissed.