2008 (2) TMI 812 - AT - Central Excise

Court rejects Revenue's appeal on compressor classification as capital goods under Rule 57Q.

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VADODARA Versus TRANSPEK INDUSTRY LTD.

The judge rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that during the relevant period, compressors were not excluded from the definition of capital goods. ... Mistake apparent on record Issues:1. Interpretation of exclusion of refrigerating compressors under Chapter heading 8414 from the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q.2. Consideration of the period involved in the appeal.3. Eligibility of compressors as capital goods for modvat purposes based on Tribunal decisions.Issue 1: Interpretation of exclusion of refrigerating compressors under Chapter heading 8414 from the definition of capital goods under Rule 57QThe advocate for the Appellant argued that the Tribunal's order, which allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue, did not consider that the exclusion of refrigerating compressors from the definition of capital goods came into effect from 1-3-97, whereas the period involved in the appeal was June 1996. He cited previous Tribunal decisions where compressors were considered eligible capital goods for modvat purposes during the relevant period. The advocate relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE, Goa v. Blue Cross Laboratories, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 716 to support this argument.Issue 2: Consideration of the period involved in the appealThe judge acknowledged that the Tribunal had not considered the period involved in the appeal at the time of passing the order, deeming it a mistake apparent on record. Consequently, the judge decided to recall the previous order and proceeded to decide the appeal itself, taking into account the relevant period of June 1996.Issue 3: Eligibility of compressors as capital goods for modvat purposes based on Tribunal decisionsGiven that during the relevant period, compressors were not specifically excluded from the definition of capital goods, and in light of previous Tribunal decisions affirming compressors as eligible capital goods for modvat purposes, the judge found no merit in the Revenue's appeal. Consequently, the judge rejected the appeal put forth by the Revenue.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD highlights the interpretation of the exclusion of refrigerating compressors from the definition of capital goods, the consideration of the period involved in the appeal, and the eligibility of compressors as capital goods for modvat purposes based on relevant Tribunal decisions.