Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Chukapalli Automotive - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. by this restoration application, the commissioner is seeking restoration of appeals no. e/1188 to 1194/99, dated 12-3-1999 and connected stay applications arising from order-in-appeal no. 7/99 (g) (d)-c.e., dt. 12-3-1999 passed by commissioner of central excise (appeals), hyderabad be restored to their original numbers.2. the appeals had been dismissed by final order nos. 2430-2436/99, dated 24-9-1999 on account of defects found in the appeal. the commissioner in the application submits that the defects have since been cured and therefore appeals be restored to their original numbers and decided on merits.3. heard ld. dr, shri m. kunhikannan and perused the application for restoration.4. on careful consideration, i notice that the defects which the registry had pointed out from the appeal have since been attended to.hence the application is allowed and appeals taken-up for decision on merits by recalling final order nos. 2430-2436/99, dated 24-9-1999.6. ld. dr submits that the issue in the present appeals pertains to grant of modvat credit on spare parts/components/accessories which were brought into the factory and used in the machine installed prior to 1-3-1994. both the authorities had upheld the party's contention that they are entitled to benefit of notification in view of the noted tribunal's judgments in the order. the tribunal had decided the case and held that the modvat credit on the said capital goods was available and appellants were entitled for benefit as same were used in the machines installed prior to 1-3-1994 as held in the case of cce (a.c.) v. rajahmundi v. sbch ltd., dowleswaram (order no. 627/97, dt.7-3-1997). the commissioner also upheld their plea. while so holding, he followed the ratio of his own order-in-appeal no. 2/99 (g) (d)-c.e., dt. 1-3-1999.7. ld. dr points out that the tribunal had taken-up connected matters of same collectorate arising from oia no. 4-6/99 (g) (d) (e) & 8/99 (g) (d)-ce, dated 10-3-1999 and 12-3-1999 and upheld the order by dismissing the revenue appeals. he submits that party has filed a copy of the order which is on record. he reiterates the departmental view.8. respondents have requested the case to be decided on merits in the light of the tribunal's final order nos. 2849-2880/99, dt. 15-11-1999.9. the tribunal while passing the final order noted that the authorities had rightly followed the tribunal judgments in granting benefit of modvat credit in respect of capital goods noted which were used in machines prior to 1-3-1994. the tribunal also noted that reference applications filed by the revenue were also rejected. the tribunal had extracted the findings given in commissioner (appeals) order extensively. in view of said order, the commissioner has noted large number of tribunal decisions in respect of points which were against the revenue. the tribunal has noted that there is no cause made for interfering with the commissioner (appeals) order as department has not made out a case to take a different view. i notice that the issue is fully covered and there is no merit in the appeals and hence same are rejected.

Judgment:
1. By this restoration application, the Commissioner is seeking restoration of Appeals No. E/1188 to 1194/99, dated 12-3-1999 and connected stay applications arising from Order-in-Appeal No. 7/99 (G) (D)-C.E., dt. 12-3-1999 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad be restored to their original numbers.

2. The appeals had been dismissed by Final Order Nos. 2430-2436/99, dated 24-9-1999 on account of defects found in the appeal. The Commissioner in the application submits that the defects have since been cured and therefore appeals be restored to their original numbers and decided on merits.

3. Heard ld. DR, Shri M. Kunhikannan and perused the application for restoration.

4. On careful consideration, I notice that the defects which the Registry had pointed out from the appeal have since been attended to.

Hence the application is allowed and appeals taken-up for decision on merits by recalling Final Order Nos. 2430-2436/99, dated 24-9-1999.

6. Ld. DR submits that the issue in the present appeals pertains to grant of Modvat credit on spare parts/components/accessories which were brought into the factory and used in the machine installed prior to 1-3-1994. Both the authorities had upheld the party's contention that they are entitled to benefit of notification in view of the noted Tribunal's judgments in the order. The Tribunal had decided the case and held that the Modvat credit on the said capital goods was available and appellants were entitled for benefit as same were used in the machines installed prior to 1-3-1994 as held in the case of CCE (A.C.) v. Rajahmundi v. SBCH Ltd., Dowleswaram (Order No. 627/97, dt.

7-3-1997). The Commissioner also upheld their plea. While so holding, he followed the ratio of his own Order-in-Appeal No. 2/99 (G) (D)-C.E., dt. 1-3-1999.

7. Ld. DR points out that the Tribunal had taken-up connected matters of same Collectorate arising from OIA No. 4-6/99 (G) (D) (E) & 8/99 (G) (D)-CE, dated 10-3-1999 and 12-3-1999 and upheld the order by dismissing the Revenue appeals. He submits that party has filed a copy of the order which is on record. He reiterates the departmental view.

8. Respondents have requested the case to be decided on merits in the light of the Tribunal's Final Order Nos. 2849-2880/99, dt. 15-11-1999.

9. The Tribunal while passing the final order noted that the authorities had rightly followed the Tribunal judgments in granting benefit of Modvat credit in respect of capital goods noted which were used in machines prior to 1-3-1994. The Tribunal also noted that reference applications filed by the Revenue were also rejected. The Tribunal had extracted the findings given in Commissioner (Appeals) order extensively. In view of said order, the Commissioner has noted large number of Tribunal decisions in respect of points which were against the Revenue. The Tribunal has noted that there is no cause made for interfering with the Commissioner (Appeals) order as department has not made out a case to take a different view. I notice that the issue is fully covered and there is no merit in the appeals and hence same are rejected.