Commissioner, Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Rajaram and Brothers - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

1. the revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals) whereby the benefit of modvat credit was allowed on storage tanks as capital goods.3. the contention of the revenue is that the storage tanks in question are not covered by the definition of capital goods as these are not used directly in relation to the manufacture of final product.4. the commissioner (appeals) in the impugned order held that the storage tanks are used to store hydrochloric acid which is a raw material for a manufacture of glucose and sorbital. the tribunal in the case of commissioner of central excise, raipur vs. raja ram maize products, reported in 2000 (118) e.l.t. 171 (tribunal) held that storage tanks used for storing the raw material and are entitled for the benefit of modvat credit on capital goods.5. in the present case also revenue is not disputing the use of the storage tanks as held by the commissioner (appeals) in the impugned order. therefore, in view of the above decision of the tribunal, i find no infirmity in the impugned order. the appeal is rejected.

Judgment:

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of MODVAT credit was allowed on Storage tanks as capital goods.

3. The contention of the Revenue is that the Storage tanks in question are not covered by the definition of capital goods as these are not used directly in relation to the manufacture of final product.

4. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the Storage tanks are used to store Hydrochloric Acid which is a raw material for a manufacture of Glucose and Sorbital. The Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur Vs. Raja Ram Maize Products, reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 171 (Tribunal) held that Storage tanks used for storing the raw material and are entitled for the benefit of MODVAT credit on capital goods.

5. In the present case also Revenue is not disputing the use of the Storage tanks as held by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. Therefore, in view of the above decision of the Tribunal, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is rejected.