C.C.E., New Delhi Vs. M/S. Bhiwani Textile Mills - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals).2. in the impugned order, the benefit of modvat credit in respect of electric motors and wires & cables was allowed by the commissioner (appeals).4. in this case, the appellants availed the benefit of modvat credit in respect of wires and cables and electric motors. the issue in respect of modvat credit on capital goods is now settled by the larger bench decision of the tribunal in the case of surya roshni ltd. vs c.c.e.reported in 2001 (128) e.l.t. 293. and siv indus vs. c.c.e. 2001 (129) elt 48.5. in the present case, from the facts on record, it is not clear when the wires and cables and electric motors are used in the facility by the appellants. therefore, it requires re-consideration in view of the above mentioned decision of the larger bench in the case of surya roshni ltd. as well as the decision of the hon'ble madras high court in the case of siv indus. vs. c.c.e. reported in 2001 (129) elt 48 hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to t he adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication. the adjudicating authority will decide a fresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. the appeal is disposed of by way or remand.

Judgment:
1. The revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. In the impugned order, the benefit of MODVAT Credit in respect of electric motors and wires & cables was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. In this case, the appellants availed the benefit of MODVAT Credit in respect of wires and cables and electric motors. The issue in respect of MODVAT Credit on capital goods is now settled by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Surya Roshni ltd. vs C.C.E.Reported in 2001 (128) E.L.T. 293. and Siv Indus vs. C.C.E. 2001 (129) ELT 48.

5. In the present case, from the facts on record, it is not clear when the wires and cables and electric motors are used in the facility by the appellants. Therefore, it requires re-consideration in view of the above mentioned decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Surya Roshni Ltd. as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Siv Indus. vs. C.C.E. reported in 2001 (129) ELT 48 Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to t he adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication. The adjudicating authority will decide a fresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. The appeal is disposed of by way or remand.