1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CENTR.EXCISE APPEAL No. 8 of 2005 UNION OF INDIA V/S M/S ADITYA CEMENT Mr. VIVEK SHRIMALI & Mr. RAVI BHANSALI, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. RAMIT MEHTA, for the respondent Date of Order : 27.3.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI DEO NARAYAN THANVI,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 7.7.2005 by framing the following substantial question of law:- “1. Whether parts/components of D.G. Sets received during the period from May, 1994 to Oct., 1994 were covered or not under the definition of capital goods under erstwhile rule 57Q Explanation (C) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and accordingly modvat credit was admissible or not?” The learned Assessing Officer has disallowed the credit of modvat by concluding that as per the definition provided under Rule 57Q only the machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or apliances or 2 components, spare parts and accessories of the aforesaid machinery are included in the definition of capital goods, which are used for producing or processing of any goods, or for bringing about any change in any substance for manufacture of the final product, while D.G. Sets are used for generating of electricity, and this activity was not treated to be covered for the purposes specified in clause (a). It was also considered that for D.G. Set is included under clause (c) of the explanation to Rule, but then the parts purchased are not so covered, therefore, the credit was disallowed. The learned Tribunal in appeal has found that the issue involved in the present case is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Grasim Industries Ltd. vide final order No.A/456/03 dated 8.9.2003, wherein the Tribunal has held that parts/components of power plant are entitled for the benefit of the modvat credit, as capital goods, after considering the provisions of Rule 57Q1(c) of the Rules. As we find from the order of the Assessing Authority, that the respondent Aditya Cement itself was earlier M/s.Grasim Cement, and is now a unit of Grasim India Ltd. In that view of the mtter, it can be said that the learned Tribunal has followed the earlier order passed in the case of the respondent assessee itself. 3 Learned counsel for the appellant was pointedly asked, as to what has been the ultimate fate of the earlier order dated 8.9.2003 viz., as to whether it has been challenged, or has been set aside, or affirmed. However, learned counsel for the appellant could not satisfy that the said order dated 8.9.2003 no more holds good. Over and above all this, even otherwise despite our asking learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any other subsequent judgment that may have been rendered by either the Tribunal, or by any of the High Courts, or Hon'ble the Supreme Court taking any contrary view. That being the position, in our view, when the matter is covered by an adjudication of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee itself, and which order had become final, we do not find any reason to take any different view. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( DEO NARAYAN THANVI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/