Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Rajashree Polyfil Ltd.

1. the respondent assessee had taken credit on a number of items such as tubes, pipes, fittings, vessels, receivers & tanks, wires & cables, bus duct etc. the asstt. commissioner disallowed the credit amounting to rs. 28,46,771. in doing so, he relied upon certain judgments. the commissioner (appeals) in his order, examined the function of each equipment, cited the relevant case laws and reversed the lower order and allowed the credit. against this order, the revenue filed an appeal and this application for stay of operation of this order.2. we have seen the appeal memorandum and have heard shri patwari, jdr for the applicant commissioner. the respondents were not present nor were they represented.3. in the appeal memorandum, the definition of capital goods is reproduced. it has been claimed that all items being control instruments were not used for producing or processing of goods and therefore, the credit is wrongly allowed. on this ground prayer is made for setting aside the impugned order. an interesting paragraph reads as below: further, the ministry's letter f. no. 390/15/99-jc, dated 20.1.2000 has already recommended for filing civil appeals against similar issue of cegat orders.the necessity for introducing this paragraph is not very clear since the appeal memorandum does not speak of any order made by the cegat. in the appeal memorandum, all the items contested have termed as control instruments, whereas, the proceedings show that very few of the items qualify for this title. we find that the appeal has been drafted and filed without application of mind and in an irresponsible manner.although, we are tempted to dismiss the appeal as such, we restrain ourselves with dismissal of the application seeking stay of operation of the impugned order.