Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Elgi Equipments - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. this revenue appeal arises from order-in-appeal no. 617/96-c.e., dated 3-9-1996 passed by the commissioner (appeals) by which he has held that modvat credit as capital goods is required to be extended under rule 57q in respect of the following items: 2. the commissioner (appeals) has examined the issue in the light of the hon'ble supreme court judgment rendered in the case of rajasthan state chemical works reported in 1991 (55) e.l.t. 444 (s.c.). he has noted that the first item i.e. roncorder kosaka roundness measuring instrument, is admittedly an apparatus used for forming roundness of components and they form part of the final product. he has examined the issue of fork lift truck used for handling various equipments within the factory and applied the ratio of the judgment in the case of mm.forgings vide tribunal order no. 830/96, dated 30-5-1990 reported in 1997 (89) e.l.t. 617 for giving the benefit in respect of this item.this ruling has been followed in the case of c.c.e., shillong v. kitply industries 3. with regard to electronic controller of weigh bridge, the commissioner (appeals) has not granted the benefit and the respondents have not filed any cross objection or cross appeal. hence the issue is confined to the following items only : 4. the learned sdr reiterated the grounds taken in the appeal and seeks for setting aside both the orders.5. the representative appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that concurrent findings have been given by both the authorities in regard to the two items. he relied upon the judgments noted and submits that the issue is no longer res integra. the question of denying the benefit in respect of these two items does not arise. he also relied upon the judgment in the case of larsen & toubro v. c.c.e. as reported in 1998 (101) e.l.t. 131 and that of the c.c.e. v. hydro s & s industries reported in 1998 (104) e.l.t. 421 and also in the case of avi photochem ltd. v. cce reported in 1997 (93) e.l.t. 439 which deals with these items.6. we have considered the submissions and we notice that the both the authorities had examined the issue in the light of the various decisions and found that the both the above mentioned items are necessary for the manufacture of the final product. they have examined the tribunal judgments which are binding on the authorities. we have examined the issue in the light of the various rulings rendered as noted above and we notice that the issue is settled in favour of the respondents and there is no need for interfering with the orders passed by the lower authorities. there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment:
1. This Revenue appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 617/96-C.E., dated 3-9-1996 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by which he has held that Modvat Credit as capital goods is required to be extended under rule 57Q in respect of the following items: 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has examined the issue in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment rendered in the case of Rajasthan State Chemical Works reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 444 (S.C.). He has noted that the first item i.e. Roncorder Kosaka Roundness measuring instrument, is admittedly an apparatus used for forming roundness of components and they form part of the final product. He has examined the issue of Fork lift truck used for handling various equipments within the factory and applied the ratio of the judgment in the case of MM.Forgings vide Tribunal order No. 830/96, dated 30-5-1990 reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 617 for giving the benefit in respect of this item.

This ruling has been followed in the case of C.C.E., Shillong v. Kitply Industries 3. With regard to Electronic Controller of Weigh Bridge, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not granted the benefit and the Respondents have not filed any cross objection or cross appeal. Hence the issue is confined to the following items only : 4. The learned SDR reiterated the grounds taken in the appeal and seeks for setting aside both the orders.

5. The Representative appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that concurrent findings have been given by both the authorities in regard to the two items. He relied upon the judgments noted and submits that the issue is no longer res Integra. The question of denying the benefit in respect of these two items does not arise. He also relied upon the judgment in the case of Larsen & Toubro v. C.C.E. as reported in 1998 (101) E.L.T. 131 and that of the C.C.E. v. Hydro S & S Industries reported in 1998 (104) E.L.T. 421 and also in the case of AVI Photochem Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 439 which deals with these items.

6. We have considered the submissions and we notice that the both the authorities had examined the issue in the light of the various decisions and found that the both the above mentioned items are necessary for the manufacture of the final product. They have examined the Tribunal judgments which are binding on the authorities. We have examined the issue in the light of the various rulings rendered as noted above and we notice that the issue is settled in favour of the respondents and there is no need for interfering with the orders passed by the lower authorities. There is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed.