1998 (3) TMI 375

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....acts are that vide Order-in-original (No. 322/95, dated 29-12-1995) the Assistant Collector had held that as the Diesel Oil Engine was not a complete electrical generating set and because parts of such generator sets were included under the ambit of Rule 57Q only w.e.f. 16-3-1995, whereas in this case credit has been taken on 16-1-1995, therefore the credit was wrongly taken and needed to be expunged. Considering the appeal of the party, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in original Appeal No. 118/96/Try, dated 19-6-1996 allowed the appeal on the grounds that Rule 57Q has to be read with Rule 57S and that Rule 57S has enlarged the concept of capital goods. As the Diesel Oil Engine was necessary to run the generator which in turn was necessary to r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cisions of this Hon'ble Tribunal (Order No. 646/96, dated 16-4-1996 and 2588/97, dated 16-10-1997) wherein it was clearly held that Rule 57S was the procedural rule and did not in any way effect Rule 57Q which was the substantive Rule for defining the scope of the capital goods in the Modvat capital goods scheme. He further argued, in the present order under consideration, the Hon'ble Tribunal has come to an opposite conclusion while directing the issue to be considered de novo by the lower appellate authority. He, therefore, stressed that the question of law arises as to whether `Explanation (1)(a) to Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 defined capital goods as "Machines, machinery, plant, Equipment, Apparatus, Tools or Appliances used ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder No. 2588/97, dated 25-9-1997 M/s. Titan Industries Ltd., thus confirming that the same view continued to be held by them. 7. In the present order it is seen that the Hon'ble Tribunal has chosen to depart from this position and while remanding the matter for de novo consideration for the lower appellate authority, has given clear guideline that the provisions of Rule 57S under these circumstances cannot be ignored. I find that the principle that substantive law cannot be interpreted with reference to a procedural law has been holding good for quite sometime. In the two earlier orders, the Hon'ble Tribunal has also held the same view. Now a conflicting decision has emerged in the subject order. It has been held time and again tha....