TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (7) TMI 226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion is delayed of 69 days for which an application of condonation of delay has been filed. However, we thought it appropriate to deal with the case on merit first. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee in the present case, who is registered with the Department, availed Modvat credit of Rs. 26,100/- under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, on account of purchase of duty paid capital goods i.e. electrical transformers falling under heading No. 8504. Finding that the assessee had wrongly entered the Modvat credit in its RG 23 C Part II, the electrical transformer not being covered under the Scheme for availing Modvat credit, the adjudicating authority issued show cause notice. The assessee controverted the allegation in the show cause, inter alia, submitting that even prior to the issuance of Notification No. 11/95-C.E. (N.T.), dated 16-3-1995 "Capital Goods" which were used in manufacturing of final products were eligible for Modvat credit in terms of Rule 57Q and 57T of the Rules and that the term "Capital Goods" is quite wide to include electrical transformer therein. Rejecting the contention of the assessee, the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise disallowed Mo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances used for producing or processing of any goods or for brining about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final products; (b) components, spare parts and accessories of the aforesaid machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances used for aforesaid purpose; and (c) moulds and dies, generating sets and weigh bridges used in the factory of the manufacturer." 7. A bare perusal of the definition of "capital goods" given in the Rules shows that the same is quite wide and liberal. 8 In our view the issue raised in the petition is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore and others v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. and Others - 2001 (132) E.L.T. (S.C.) = 2001(6) Supreme Court Cases 274, wherein considering Rule 57Q of the Rules, it was held as under : "4. The aforesaid definition of "capital goods" is very wide. Capital goods can be machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... these goods supply of power is one of the basic needs and without the supply of power it is not possible to carry out manufacturing activity. So only possible conclusion is that the electrical transformer used by the assessee is part of plant and machinery, used for bringing about change in substance for the manufacture of final products. 12. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the arguments raised by the counsel for the Revenue that the electrical transformers will not fall in the category of capital goods as per Rule 57Q of the Rules. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 13. In view of our above findings, we do not deem proper to deal with application for condonation of delay. 14. Before parting with the order, we are constrained to record our displeasure in the manner in which the officers of the petitioner department are conducting this case, which involved a sum of Rs. 26,100/-. The Revenue must have spent more than the duty as expenses and professional fees besides spending huge amount of man hours at various levels for dealing with the filing of petitions and visiting different places in connection with this case, which is covered agains....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uirements at S. Nos. 1,2 & 4 have been completed at their level. Now only the affidavit duly signed by the Commissioner is required to be sent to the Govt. Counsel at Delhi. 10. That the affidavit duly signed by the Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Panchkula was forwarded to the Divisional office, Central Excise, Yamuna Nagar on 7-5-2003 through its representative. 11. That on 18-6-2003 letter was sent to Govt. Counsel to inform the latest position of the case and date of filing of Reference Application. But no reply was received. 12. That on the part of the applicants all the requirements/formalities as desired by the Govt. Counsel were completed in all respects. 13. That the letter dated 1-4-2004 was received from the office of Govt. Counsel addressed to the Divisional office Central Excise, Panchkula. In the said letter it was mentioned that the reference petition filed in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court are to be in fact adjudicated by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh as per High Court's decision....