Prism Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

2. whether the above items are eligible input or not to avail modvat credit is an issue to be considered in this case.3. we find that issue in respect of the first two items has already been considered by the tribunal holding that they are not eligible inputs to avail modvat credit in the case of jaypee rewa cement v. cce, raipur as per order nos. a/466-67/2000-nb(db)/ dated 07.06.2000, [2000 (119) e.l.t. 552 (tri.-lb) and chemo pulp tissues and ors. v. cce, meerut and ors., 2000 (38) r.l.t. 988 (cegat-lb).4. in view of this position following the ruling given by the tribunal in the aforesaid cases, we hold that the above items are not an eligible inputs. as regards third item there is some force in the arguments, on behalf of the appellant. we find that modvat credit has been denied in respect of bridge rectifier on the ground that description does not tally with the item. the tribunal has been consistently taking the view that procedural lapse if any, should not come in the way of denial of substantial justice. in the facts and circumstances, and in view of the submissions made by the counsel there is no justification to deny the modvat credit in respect of bridge rectifier. accordingly, we held that item bridge rectifier is an eligible input. in this view, this appeal is disposed of in the above terms.