Full Judgment
2. The respondent assessees used modvat facility. During 1995 while assessing the returns filed by them, the jurisdictional officers felt that modvat credit under rule 57Q in case of certain goods was wrongly availed of. Show cause notices were issued seeking recovery of the credit thus wrongly taken. The notices were stereo-type. In stereo-type adjudication orders the Assistant Commissioner held that the items did not meet the requirement of rule 57Q and confirmed the demand. In doing so he did not even bother to list the description of the goods and show how they did not relate to the production of the goods by the assessees. The assessees then filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) identified the goods as electric motors, gear boxes, communicating belts, pressure gauges etc. He took paints to list his opinion as to how the goods were entitled to the benefit. He also cited the case law given by the Tribunal in cases where these very goods were the subject matter of the appeal. He reversed the orders and allowed the appeals resulting in the present appeals being filed by the Revenue.
3. Shri R.M. Kandoi appearing for the assesses claimed that the capital goods had already earlier been installed in the factory and the presently disputed goods were merely spare parts or replacement parts therefore. I find that this specific claim was made before the Assistant Commissioner as recorded by him in his order No.VAPI/115/DEM/98. I find that no discussion was made at all by the Assistant Commissioner as to on what basis he denied the modvat credit.
In this background I find it extremely surprising that the claim has been made that the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner after study of the detailed report and utility report submitted by the assessees found that the capital goods were not so covered. There is no such report.
There is no discussion and the adjudicating officer was an Assistant Commissioner and not Deputy Commissioner.
4. In the appeal memorandum there is no whisper about the ratio of the various judgments cited by the Commissioner (Appeals). The entire exercise of filing appeals against the Commissioner's orders is frivolous.
5. Given the definition of capital goods as it existed at the time when the credit was taken, in view of the citations made and in view of the averment that the goods were spares or replacement parts for the capital goods which were already admitted and allowed to be capital goods, the appeals do not survive and are dismissed.