Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sweety Industries

.....passed by assistant commissioner of central excise, nadiad. by the order-in-original assistant commissioner has confirmed the demand of denial of modvat credit to the tune of rs. 37,105/- and imposed a penalty of rs. 1000/-.2. question involved in the appeal is about availability of the modvat credit claimed by the assessee in respect of air conditioner and air compressor under rule 57q of the modvat rules. question is whether these inputs come within the provisions of the definition of capital goods.3. from the wording of the captive contained in rule 57q the items in question namely air conditioner and air compressor come within the term capital goods. the argument of the department as reflected in the grounds of appeal is that against the decision of the tribunal in the cases of m/s. pharmasynth formulations ltd. v. commissioner of central excise - 1999 (107) e.l.t. 66 (tribunal) and in the case of sunil synchem ltd., 1999 (107) e.l.t. 176 some reference applications are pending in the high court. shri b.k. choubey for the department would arguably that since a reference application pending in the high court in any way happened in the high court. in the event of high court accepting the department's contention then it will amount to the impugned order passed wrongly.4. i have considered interesting and able to argument of the ld. dr.existence of the tribunal judgments cannot be denied. the effectiveness and precedential value of those judgments cannot be watered down simply because a reference application is pending in the high court. the ld.dr does not state that the stay has been granted by the high court.moreover until the earlier order of tribunal are set aside by superior forum such orders are binding on me. i therefore do not see any grounds interfere. hence the appeal as well as the stay petition stand dismissed.