C.C.E., Indore Vs. M/S. J.K. Indus. Ltd., - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals) whereby the benefit of modvat credit in respect of capacitors, parts of transformer and cables was allowed.2. when the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice. therefore, the appeal is being taken up in the absence of respondents.4. the contention of the revenue is that the goods, in question, are not covered under the definition of capital goods, as these are not directly related to the manufacture of final product as they did not produce or process or bring about any change in any substance in the manufacture of final product and the commissioner (appeals) in the impugned order has not given any finding in this regard. now the larger bench of the tribunal in the case of c.c.e. vs surya roshni ltd.reported in 2001 (128) e.l.t. 293 interpreted the provisions of rule 57 q of the rules. the benefit of the larger bench decision was not available before the lower authorities. the issue involved in this appeal requires reconsideration in view of the larger bench decision of the tribunal in the case of surya roshni ltd. (supra). hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication. the adjudicating authority will decide the issue a fresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the respondents. 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) whereby the benefit of MODVAT Credit in respect of capacitors, parts of transformer and cables was allowed.

2. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice. Therefore, the appeal is being taken up in the absence of respondents.

4. The contention of the revenue is that the goods, in question, are not covered under the definition of capital goods, as these are not directly related to the manufacture of final product as they did not produce or process or bring about any change in any substance in the manufacture of final product and the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has not given any finding in this regard. Now the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. vs Surya Roshni Ltd.reported in 2001 (128) E.L.T. 293 interpreted the provisions of Rule 57 Q of the Rules. The benefit of the Larger Bench Decision was not available before the lower authorities. The issue involved in this appeal requires reconsideration in view of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Surya Roshni Ltd. (supra). Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication. The adjudicating authority will decide the issue a fresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the respondents. The appeal is disposed of by way or remand.