TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (5) TMI 100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed into five sub-issues as follows :- (1) Modvat credit availability on Blower and other parts of the blower and Power Plant. (2) Electrical Transformers, Appliances, Apparatus, Wires & Cables. (3) Yard Pipes (4) Whether Modvat credit can be taken on Gate passes issued prior to 1-4-1994 and credit taken after 30-6-1994 in terms of Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994 ? and (5) Whether parts of water pumps used in the Water Pump House located 15 Kms. of outside the respondents factory for pumping the water which is used in the manufacturing process in their factory would be eligible to Modvat credit ? 3.With respect to the Blower, Boiler and Power plant parts and accessories, ld. DR submits that the order impugned has classified them as capital goods qualifying for Modvat credit wrongly. He submits that the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. as in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 47 (T) has not negatived the decision of the Tribunal to the contrar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d also power plant are concerned, these would be covered under Rule 57Q as capital goods as the said equipments cannot be installed, erected and commissioned and made operational in the factory premises without affixing them and therefore they would be part of the plant and hence covered under Rule 57Q. He refers to the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. (supra) and submits in paras 37 to 40, the Tribunal has laid down three tests for eligibility of Modvat credit as follows :- (a) that it should be a machine, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus , tools or appliance; (b) that it should be used for producing or processing of a goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for manufacture of final product etc.; and (c) it should have distinct nature as a durable as against consumable so that it satisfies the definition of plant. 9.He further submits that to arrive at these tests, further a detailed discussion is available in the said Tribunal order in para 34 thereof wherein the Tribunal has relied on the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efractories Ltd. and also applying the ratio of the Final Order No. 1011/96, dated 6-6-1996 of the Tribunal in the case of Kerala State Development Corporation (supra), therefore the credit would in this case be allowed. 13.With respect to the fifth issue, ld. Advocate submits that while it is on record that these items were used to repair and maintain the pump in the pump house on the bank of the river which is located 15 Kms. away from the factory premises, however the water so pumped by this equipment is carried out by pipeline only into the factory premises and without that water manufacturing operations are not possible. He submits that as far as the decision cited by ld. DR in the case of CCE v. India Cements (supra), the facts dealt with therein were different being that dumpers were used in mines which is not held to be a factory. In this case, pump house and the pumps therein can be treated as an extension of the factory inasmuch as the water drawn is only delivered in the factory premises. 14.We have carefully considered these submissions and records of the case and our findings on the above five issues involved are as follows :- (1)  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bunal that steel pipes/tubes used to convey the said air, steam and water which are essential for the manufacturing process to continue being eligble to Modvat credit in the decision in Modern Petrofils (supra) and since in this case the steel tubes carried the gases and also because no evidence has been placed before us by Revenue that these gases had no nexus at all with the manufacturing process, therefore, we find that there is no infirmity in the orders impugned which forces us to interfere with the same. (4) The issue of credit availability on Gate Passes issued prior to 1-4-1994 and credit taken after 30-6-1994 was considered in the three cases already noted above as cited by ld. Advocate. The only ground that Revenue has submitted is that in one of the cases namely Tata Refractories Ltd., an RCP has been filed before the Hon'ble High Court against the order of the Tribunal. However, there is nothing on record to show that the Hon'ble High Court stayed the operation of the order. Further, Revenue has already conceded that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Travancore Chemicals & Mfg. Co. (supra) has already been accepte....