Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - MumbaiVikram Ispat vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 1 December, 2003ORDER
 

  K.D. Mankar, Member (T)1.        The dispute in the instant appeal relates to availability of modvat credit in respect of the following items:-Description
  
   
   

C.Ex. Tariff S.H. No.1.Fabrication & structure
  
   
   

7308.902.
  
   
   

Cable Tray
  
   
   

7308.903.
  
   
   

V. Belt
  
   
   

4010.904.
  
   
   

G.I. Tray
  
   
   

7326.905.
  
   
   

Aluminium Rolled Sheet
  
   
   

7326.902.     In the order-in-original, the grounds for denial of credit are different  from  those  indicated  in  the  impugned  order of the Commissioner  (Appeals). Learned DR has vehemently pleaded that in terms of the definition of capital goods, as applicable during the relevant time, none of the items in respect of which credit has been claimed, qualify to be capital goods.3.     The items, fabrication & structure, are basically the structural to house the conveyor system. The role of cable trays and G.I. trays is not possible to be deciphered, as no literature has been presented. So far as V-belt is concerned, the ground, that it is a part of compressor which is not meant for refrigeration air-conditioning application, is a new argument that has been introduced only at the stage of appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel submits that the compressor is meant for dust extraction system and is not an excluded type of compressor for the purposes of Rule 57Q.  Aluminium rolled sheet, being in continuous running length, cannot be envisaged to be the parts.4.     I have considered the rival submissions and I note that certain
case laws cited during the hearing, on the basis of which the eligibility of the impugned items has been accepted in the said orders, require a detailed scrutiny inasmuch as on going through the said orders, it is not possible to comprehend whether the definition of capital goods, as substituted by notification 6/97-CE(NT) dated 1.3.1997, was under examination in the said judgments. 1 find that the grounds for disallowing the claim for modvat in the impugned order-in-appeal are quite different from
the conclusions arrived at for disallowing the credit by the original
authority.5.     During the course of hearing, the learned advocate also mentioned that, for the subsequent periods, the Commissioner (Appeals) has granted them the credit in respect of some of the items. The learned DR therefore pleaded that this matter needs to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority afresh.6.     Accordingly, I allow the appeal of the appellants by de novo 
remand to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration of the
issue, in the light of the observations above, and to pass fresh- orders after affording necessary opportunities to the appellants.The orders of the lower authorities are consequentially set aside.7.     The appeal is allowed by way of de novo remand.(Dictated in Court)