C.C.E. Hyderabad Vs. M/S. Pitti Laminations Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....for holding that modvat credit is available in respect of fork lift falling under chapter heading 8424 of cet, receive d by the respondents in their factory on 10.11.94 vide invoice no. 657 dated 10.11.94 in terms of notification no. 11/94 ce (nt) dated 16.3.95. assistant commissioner has denied the credit on the ground t hat the ifem cannot be considered as capital goods. however the commissioner (appeals) after verifying the facts and noticing that the frok lift is used f or shifting goods from on place to another within the factory during the course of manufacture of the final product, held that it was necessary f or the manufacture of the final product. therefore, the item has been held to be capital goods.in this regard, he has noted a larger number of judgements which covers the very same issue of fork lift. these judgements are noted inn para 7 of his order as under:cce vs. mm forgings ltd. 2. the learned sdr shri g.sreekumrar submits that the department has not accepted the tribunal judgement and fork lift cannot be considered as capital goods as it does not help in direct participation of the manufacturing of final products. he took me through the grounds of appeal filed.....

Judgment:

1. By this appeal, the Revenue challenges the correctness of the order in appeal No.54/98(M-II) CE dated 5.10.98 for holding that Modvat credit is available in respect of Fork Lift falling under chapter heading 8424 of CET, receive d by the respondents in their factory on 10.11.94 vide invoice No. 657 dated 10.11.94 in terms of Notification No. 11/94 CE (NT) dated 16.3.95. Assistant Commissioner has denied the credit on the ground t hat the ifem cannot be considered as capital goods. However the Commissioner (Appeals) after verifying the facts and noticing that the Frok lift is used f or shifting goods from on place to another within the factory during the course of manufacture of the final product, held that it was necessary f or the manufacture of the final product. Therefore, the item has been held to be capital goods.

In this regard, he has noted a larger number of judgements which covers the very same issue of Fork lift. These judgements are noted inn para 7 of his order as under:CCE vs. MM Forgings Ltd. 2. The learned SDR Shri G.Sreekumrar submits that the department has not accepted the Tribunal judgement and Fork lift cannot be considered as capital goods as it does not help in direct participation of the manufacturing of final products. He took me through the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue and seeks for reversal of the credit and confirmation of the order in original.

3. None has appeared for the respondents despite notice. Hence the matter is taken up for consideration on the basis of the grounds made out by the Revenue and on the basis of the finding arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is seen from the impugned order that the issue of grant of Modvat Credit in respect of Fork lift used within the factory is covered by the judgements of the Tribunal noted above.

Therefore, so long as the item Fork Lift is used for shifting of materials from one place to another within the factory during the course of manufacture of the final product, the Tribunal has always up held the contention of the assessees that the item in question is considered as capital goods. As a c o-ordinate Bench and in keeping with the judicial discipline, those judgements are required to be applied by the this Bench. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is rejected.