1 cexa-12.06 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2006 M/s.ISIBARS Limited. ... Appellant. V/s. The Commissioner of Central Excise and others. ... Respondents. P.V.Patankar i/b. P.P.Patankar for the appellant. R.V.Desai, Senior Advocate with R.B.Pardeshi for the respondents. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 31st August 2010. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. Perused appeal. 2. This appeal was admitted vide order dated 6th March, 2006 to consider the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the `Programmable Logic Controller' falling under Chapter Heading No.84.71 is “capital goods” as envisaged under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1988? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal (CESTAT) is perverse as the same is passed on the basis that “the Lower Authorities have held that 2 cexa-12.06 since `Programmable Logic Controller' is a complete system, it is not covered against Serial No.5 of the Table (appended to the Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944) being the components, spares and accessories of the goods specified against Serial No.1 to 4 of the said Table” whereas, neither in the Order- in-Original nor in the Order-in- Appeal it is so held? 3. During the course of hearing, we were taken through the order of the Tribunal; wherein the Tribunal has rightly interpreted rule 57-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 4. The contention canvassed by Mr.Patankar, learned counsel for the appellant that even-though item No.84.71 which is one of the components or spares or accessories of the furnace unit falling under Item No.84.17 cannot be said to have been excluded in view of specific item at Sr.No.5 given in the rule 57-Q is misplaced. If the interpretation canvassed by Mr.Patankar is accepted, then the entry excluding Item No.84.17 itself would become otiose. 5. The aforesaid view taken by the Tribunal is a reasonable and only possible view with which no fault can be found. Both the questions are, thus, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)