Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President

1. The above appeals arise out of a common order-in-Appeal disposing of five Orders-in-Original. Details of the above appeals are annexed to this order.

2. The issue in dispute relates to eligibility of modvat credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods used within the factory of the appellants in the manufacture of Soda Ash falling under Chapter 28 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

3. The period involved is prior to 23.7.1996.

4. We have heard both sides. The first ground for disallowing credit is that bills of entry or invoices covering the goods showed the address of the head office of the appellants while the goods were sent to the factory of the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon CEBEC Circular dt. 14.5.1996 providing for credit to be allowed if entire consignment in the original packing is transferred to the manufacturing unit and the duty paying documents endorsed by the Registered office/Corporate office in whose name and address the documents have been consigned, and held that since these two conditions have not been fulfilled, credit is not admissible. We find force in the submission of the appellants that the show cause notice proposed denial of credit only on the ground that goods covered under the relevant invoices were not consigned to the appellants factory of Sutrapada and the appellants had produced copies of invoices showing consignment of goods to Sutrapada factory. They have also produced evidence that the goods manufactured in their factory were covered under letter dt. 15.2.1999. we have also gone through the endorsed documents showing that invoices etc. were in favour of the Sutrapada factory and also note that the circular was issued prior to the period in dispute in the present case. We therefore see no reason for disallowing the credit on this ground and set aside the denial of credit. Credit on lon Exchange Resin which has been denied is admissible in the light of the Tribunals decision in the case of Straw Products Ltd v. CCE (: 1992 (59) ELT 572 ) and Saurashta Chemicals v. CCE (: 1995 (80) ELT 302) holding that Chemicals used for de-mineralisation (lon Exchange Resin is used for such purpose) are inputs. We therefore hold that credit is admissible on lon Exchange Resin.

5. Another ground for denial of credit that invoice does not contain pre-printed serial numbers. This is not a valid ground for denying the credit in the light of Rule 57G(11) which provides that credit shall not be denied on the ground that the invoices did not contain the pre-printed serial numbers, provides the invoices contained the details of payment of duty, description of goods, assessable value, name and address of the factory. These details are available, and the factual position has also been clarified by the Central Board of Excise and Customs vide Circular No. 41/7/99 CX (F. No. 267/135/95-CX8) dt 23.2.1999. The Larger Bench decision in the case of Kamani Tubes Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai. (2001 (134) E.L.T. 665 (Tri.LB) also supports the contention of the appellants regarding admissibility of credit even when the invoices do not contain pre-printed serial numbers. In the light of the above, we hold that credit cannot be denied.

6. Credit on Lubricating system is also admissible to the appellants as it is covered by the definition of capital goods in terms of Explanation (a) to Rule 57Q. in the light of Tribunals order reported in 1993(33) RLT 973 (Mansurpur Sugar Mills v. CCE) and : 2001 (136) ELT 1108 (CCE v. Raipur Alloy Steel Ltd.) We therefore set aside the denial of credit on this items.

7. Lastly, we hold that credit is admissible to Parts of Conveyor Roller Chain as Conveyor rollers themselves, which are in the nature of material handing equipment have been held to be eligible to credit in the case of CCE v. Jindai Strips Ltd. (2000 (126) ELT 631 and hence parts of such capital goods are also covered by the definition of capital goods in terms of Explanation 1(b) to Rule 57Q. In the result, we hold that, credit on entire items is admissible to the appellants. set aside the denial thereof, as well as the penalty and allow the appeals.