Cce, Kanpur Vs. M/S. G.P.L. Fibres Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the short issue involved in the present appeal of the revenue is as regard is as regards the availability of modvat credit in respect of transfer and switch gear box. the commissioner (appeals) by allowing the modvat credit in respect of said items has relied upon the tribunal decisions and has observed as under:- "i have examined the case carefully. i find that the appellant has objected to allow the credit on transformer and switch gear box on the ground that these items were not covered under the definition of capital goods at that time. but, i find that the notification no. 11/95-ce(nt) dated 16.3.95 and 14/96-ce(nt) dated 23.7.96 was introduced under capital goods vide which transformer and switch gear board were introduced. the tribunal in a catena of judgement has held that transformer and switch gear board are eligible capital goods for modvat purposes. the decisions of hon'ble tribunal are mentioned in para-4 above. the hon'ble tribunal in the case reported in 1996 (88) elt 785 (t) have also held that the explanation to rule 57-q is obviously clarification in nature as is evident from the budget speech of the finance minister while moving the finance bill, 1996 in pursuance of which the notification has been issued. the finance minister stated, therein "the modvat scheme which provides for duty credit on inputs and capital goods has been liberalised considerably over the past few years. still there are problems about the coverage of certain inputs and capital goods. i propose to clarify the scope of eligible capital goods by specifying the heading and sub-heading of the tariff relating to capital goods in modvat rules", (emphasis supplied). being thus, a clarificatory amendment to rule 57-q, the substituted explanation, in our view, can be retrospectively applied as per well-settled principles of interpretation of notifications. therefore, in view of the above discussions ad the judgement of tribunal, i do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the departmental appeal is liable to be rejected." 2. sh. j. singh, ld. jdr appearing for the revenue submits that the earlier decisions of the tribunal have been appealed against by the revenue before the hon'ble supreme court. he fairly agrees that there is no stay granted by the apex court, stayed operation of the said decisions of the tribunal. sh. s.k. dhanda, consultant appears for the respondents submits that in the absence of any stay, the tribunals decision has to be followed unless the same is set aside by the hon'ble supreme court.3. in view what has been stayed above i do not find any infirmity in the order of the commissioner (appeals) and accordingly reject the revenue's appeal.

Judgment:
1. The short issue involved in the present appeal of the Revenue is as regard is as regards the availability of modvat credit in respect of Transfer and Switch Gear Box. The Commissioner (Appeals) by allowing the modvat credit in respect of said items has relied upon the Tribunal decisions and has observed as under:- "I have examined the case carefully. I find that the appellant has objected to allow the credit on transformer and Switch gear box on the ground that these items were not covered under the definition of capital goods at that time. But, I find that the Notification No. 11/95-CE(NT) dated 16.3.95 and 14/96-CE(NT) dated 23.7.96 was introduced under capital goods vide which transformer and Switch gear board were introduced. The Tribunal in a catena of judgement has held that transformer and switch gear board are eligible capital goods for modvat purposes. The decisions of Hon'ble Tribunal are mentioned in para-4 above. The Hon'ble Tribunal in the case reported in 1996 (88) ELT 785 (T) have also held that the explanation to Rule 57-Q is obviously clarification in nature as is evident from the budget speech of the Finance Minister while moving the Finance Bill, 1996 in pursuance of which the notification has been issued. the Finance Minister stated, therein "The modvat scheme which provides for duty credit on inputs and capital goods has been liberalised considerably over the past few years. Still there are problems about the coverage of certain inputs and capital goods. I propose to clarify the scope of eligible capital goods by specifying the heading and sub-heading of the tariff relating to capital goods in modvat rules", (emphasis supplied). Being thus, a clarificatory amendment to rule 57-Q, the substituted explanation, in our view, can be retrospectively applied as per well-settled principles of interpretation of notifications. Therefore, in view of the above discussions ad the judgement of Tribunal, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the departmental appeal is liable to be rejected." 2. Sh. J. Singh, ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue submits that the earlier decisions of the Tribunal have been appealed against by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He fairly agrees that there is no stay granted by the apex Court, stayed operation of the said decisions of the Tribunal. Sh. S.K. Dhanda, Consultant appears for the respondents submits that in the absence of any stay, the Tribunals decision has to be followed unless the same is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

3. In view what has been stayed above I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly reject the Revenue's appeal.