Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the ld. collector (appeals) denied modvat credit on sodium sulphite, cathode block, glass filter cloth and activated carbon against which the appellants had filed appeal no. e/3194/93-nb. the ld. collector (appeals) again denied modvat credit on the refractory cement which is the subject matter of appeal no. 3191/93-nb. against the denial of modvat credit the appellants have filed the present appeals.2. the facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aluminium and products thereof. the appellants used certain inputs such as sodium sulphite, cathode block, glass filtrate cloth, activated carbon and refractory cement as some of the inputs. both the inputs and the final products are specified for taking modvat credit under rule 57a. the appellants availed the benefit of input duty credit under the modvat scheme after filing the declaration under rule 57g. the department alleged that the above referred items are not inputs, therefore, denied modvat credit on those items.3. shri r. nambirajan, advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and submitted that in so far as activated carbon, glass filter cloth, sodium sulphite and cathode block are concerned they are covered by the decision of the tribunal in their own case under tribunal's order nos.a/264-265/97-nb, dated 29-1-1997. he submits that in so far as refractory cement is concerned this is covered by the decision of the tribunal in their own case reported in 1996 (88) e.l.t. 519 (tribunal) the ld. counsel, therefore, submits that since ratio of the above two decisions of the tribunal covers their case on all fours the appeals may be allowed.4. shri y.r. kilania the ld. dr appearing for the respondent commissioner reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.5. heard the submissions of both sides. we find that all the five items in dispute are covered by the two decisions of the tribunal in the case of the appellant himself and which are cited above. we do not see any reason to disagree with the findings of the tribunal in the above two cases relied upon. following the ratio of these two decisions of the tribunal we hold that modvat credit will be admissible on activated carbon, glass filter cloth, sodium sulphite, cathode block and refractory cement. in the result the appeals are allowed. consequential relief if any shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.

Judgment:
1. The Ld. Collector (Appeals) denied Modvat credit on sodium sulphite, cathode block, glass filter cloth and activated carbon against which the appellants had filed Appeal No. E/3194/93-NB. The Ld. Collector (Appeals) again denied Modvat credit on the refractory cement which is the subject matter of Appeal No. 3191/93-NB. Against the denial of Modvat credit the appellants have filed the present appeals.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aluminium and products thereof. The appellants used certain inputs such as sodium sulphite, cathode block, glass filtrate cloth, activated carbon and refractory cement as some of the inputs. Both the inputs and the final products are specified for taking Modvat credit under Rule 57A. The appellants availed the benefit of input duty credit under the Modvat scheme after filing the declaration under Rule 57G. The Department alleged that the above referred items are not inputs, therefore, denied Modvat credit on those items.

3. Shri R. Nambirajan, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and submitted that in so far as activated carbon, glass filter cloth, sodium sulphite and cathode block are concerned they are covered by the decision of the Tribunal in their own case under Tribunal's Order Nos.

A/264-265/97-NB, dated 29-1-1997. He submits that in so far as refractory cement is concerned this is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in their own case reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 519 (Tribunal) the Ld. Counsel, therefore, submits that since ratio of the above two decisions of the Tribunal covers their case on all fours the appeals may be allowed.

4. Shri Y.R. Kilania the Ld. DR appearing for the respondent Commissioner reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.

5. Heard the submissions of both sides. We find that all the five items in dispute are covered by the two decisions of the Tribunal in the case of the appellant himself and which are cited above. We do not see any reason to disagree with the findings of the Tribunal in the above two cases relied upon. Following the ratio of these two decisions of the Tribunal we hold that Modvat credit will be admissible on activated carbon, glass filter cloth, sodium sulphite, cathode block and refractory cement. In the result the appeals are allowed. Consequential relief if any shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.