Per S. S. Kang :

The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-Appeal dated 30.11.95 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad. In this case, the Modvat Credit on capital goods, that is on cement and steel structure was denied on the ground that it does not come under the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

2. The appellants are setting up a Blast furnace in its integrated steel plant for production of pig iron. The appellants took the benefit of Modvat Credit on capital goods, in respect of cement and steel structure used in erection and fabrication of blast furnace under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Show cause notice was issued on the ground that cement and steel structure are not directly related in manufacture of final product and also are not included as capital goods as defined under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. After adjudication the adjudicating authority held that cement and steel structure are not plant, machinery or equipment as per definition under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Appellants filed appeal and the same was dismissed.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that, in the erection of the blast furnace, the appellants uses cement and steel structure as vital and essential specialised components and parts thereof and hence are capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He submits that plant is understood, in commercial parlance as also not the machinery and the equipment for production of any goods, but also the complete land, building and factory in which any goods are produced or manufactured. He relied upon the technical and legal dictionaries in support of his argument that the definition of plant includes building, land, machine, apparatus, equipment and fixtures used for manufacture of goods. He submitted that as per McGraw Hill's Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms the plant includes the land, buildings and equipment used in an industry. He also relied upon Law Lexicon with Legal Maxims vol. III which defines plant includes within its ambit buildings and equipment used for manufacturing purposes. He submits that the respondent has given a very restricted meaning to the term plant by restricting the same equipment/machinery. He relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Indian Copper Corporation Limited Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar and others reported in 1965 STC VOL. XVI Page 259. He submits that the Honourable Supreme Court in this case held that in a case where a dealer is engaged both in mining operations and in the manufacturing process - the two processes being interdependent - it would be impossible to exclude vehicles which are used for removing from the place where the mining operations are concluded to the factory where the manufacturing process starts. It appears that the process of mining are and manufacture with the aid of are copper goods is an integral process and there would be no ground for an Exclusion from the vehicles those which are used for renowing goods to the factory after mining operations are concluded. Nor is there any ground for excluding locomotive and motor vehicles used in carrying finished products from the factory. The expression intended to use in the manufacturing and process of sale may ordinarily include such vehicles as are intended to be used for removal of processed goods from the factory to the place of storage. He further submitted that this view was further followed by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Limited Vs. The Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur reported in AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1310. He submits that in this case the Honourable Supreme Court held that the process of designing may be distinct from the actual process of turning out finished goods. But there is no warrant for limiting the meaning of the expres