IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CEA No.1 of 2011 Date of decision: 05.09.2011 Commissioner Central Excise, … …Appellant Chandigarh. Versus M/s A.C.C. Ltd.Unit-1, … …Respondent Barmana (HP). Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.B. Misra,J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Appellant: Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. For the Respondents: None. Per Dev Darshan Sud,J. The Commissioner, Central Excise, has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the appellate Tribunal in E/Appeal No.1782/04-NB(B) rejecting the appeal filed by the Revenue on the question as to whether MODVAT, Credit of the duty paid in Tyre Protection Chain, falling under Heading 73.15 of the Central Excise Tariff, is available to the Respondents M/s.A.C.C., Ltd. under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 2. The Revenue raises the following question for consideration in this appeal:- “During the relevant period only those items were covered under the definition of capital goods, which were used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of Final Products or which found mention under sub- clause(d) of clause (I) under explanation to Rule 57Q of the Central Rules, 1944. The question arises whether Protective Chain for tyre were covered under the definition of capital goods during the relevant period when the same were not used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final produce and found no mention under Sub- clause (d) of Clause (I) under explanation to Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944?” 3. Shri Sandeep Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, urges that Tribunal was in grave error in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue and that the facts on the record clearly establish that the demand, as raised by the Collector, was within the purview of the Act. 4. We find that the question so raised has been squarely answered against the Revenue by Hon’ble Justice R.B. Misra in Excise Reference No.7 of 2000, 3 titled, Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s.A.C.C. Ltd, decided on 24th June, 2008. 5. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly rejected. Let a copy of the judgment of Excise Reference No.7 of 2000, as noted above, be placed on the record of this case. (R.B. Misra) Judge September 5, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge