JUDGMENT M.S. Sanklecha, J. - This appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (Act) takes exception to the order dated 30th October, 2006 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) [ 2007 (208) E.L.T. 372 (Tri.-Mumbai)]. 2. This appeal was admitted on 10th July, 2008 on the following substantial question of law. "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in allowing the Modvat credit on the parts and components of sugar machinery which were neither assessee''s capital goods used for manufacture of their final product nor inputs used in any way by them for the manufacture of capital goods"? 3. With the consent of the parties, the above substantial question of law has been reframed to bring out the exact nature of the dispute as under :- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, was the Tribunal justified in allowing Cenvat credit on the machines/equipments of a sugar plant?" 4. The respondent is engaged in manufacturing of sugar and molasses (final products). These final products are cleared on payment of Excise duty under the Act. The respondent entered into two agreements with M/s. S.S. Engineers one for purchase of machinery and equipments required for a sugar plant and the other for setting up of a sugar plant out of the above purchased machinery and equipments at its site. As a result of the aforesaid two agreements M/s. S.S. Engineers supplied all equipments/machineries required for setting up the sugar plant at the factory of the respondent. The above equipments/machines are supplied by M/s. S.S. Engineers under cover of Central Excise (Cenvatable) invoices indicating the name and factory address of the respondent. 5. In terms of the above agreements, M/s. S.S. Engineers erected/set up and commissioned a sugar plant at the respondent''s factory. This sugar plant was admittedly used to manufacture its final products. The respondent, availed of the duty paid as Cenvat credit on the equipment/machines, used to set up the sugar plant and utilized it for payment of duty on its final product. The same was disclosed to the appellant in the statutory returns filed by the respondents regularly. 6. Thereafter, on 24th March, 2005, the appellant issued a show cause notice to the respondent seeking to deny/deprive the respondent''s Cenvat credit of Rs. The same was disclosed to the appellant in the statutory returns filed by the respondents regularly. 6. Thereafter, on 24th March, 2005, the appellant issued a show cause notice to the respondent seeking to deny/deprive the respondent''s Cenvat credit of Rs. 3.60 crores under Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with Section 11A of the Act availed for the period May, 2003 to April, 2004 being 50% @ Rs. 1.80 crores for year ending 31st March, 2004 and 50% @ R. 1.80 crores for year ending 31st March, 2005. Besides seeking to impose a penalty and levy interest under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The basis of the above notice was that the machines/equipments on which the appellant had availed Cenvat credit on the basis of cenvatable invoices as capital goods, could not be availed. This as the machines/equipments are in fact, inputs used by M/s. S.S. Engineers to set up the sugar plant. Therefore, Cenvat credit could not have been availed of by the respondent, but if at all only by M/s. S.S. Engineers. 7. The respondent contested the show cause notice. It claimed to be entitled to take Cenvat credit on the machines/equipments as capital goods received by them at their factory and which was used for setting up of a plant for manufacture of the final product at their factory. It was submitted that, M/s. S.S. Engineers were not the manufacturer of the sugar plant but only job worker on behalf of the respondent. Thus, the respondent was entitled to avail of Cenvat credit to the extent the Excise duty was paid on machines/equipments classifiable as capital goods under Rule 2(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. 8. However, the Commissioner of Central Excise by an order dated 2nd November, 2005 did not accept the respondent''s submission and confirmed the show cause notice. This, resulted in denial of cenvatable credit of Rs. 3.60 Crores along with interest thereon and also imposition of an equivalent penalty upon the respondent. 9. Being aggrieved with the order dated 2nd November, 2005, of the Commissioner of Central Excise, the respondent filed an appeal to the Tribunal. This, resulted in denial of cenvatable credit of Rs. 3.60 Crores along with interest thereon and also imposition of an equivalent penalty upon the respondent. 9. Being aggrieved with the order dated 2nd November, 2005, of the Commissioner of Central Excise, the respondent filed an appeal to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the respondent placed reliance upon the various decisions of the Tribunal rendered under the erstwhile Rule 57Q of the Modvat Credit Rules as part of the Central Excise Rules to contend that in similar circumstances this Tribunal has consistently held that where equipments/machines are installed/erected/setup into a plant by a contractor, in the factory belonging to the another person, then such other person in whose premises the plant is installed/set up would be entitled to avail of the Modvat credit under Rules 57Q of the Modvat Rules it was pointed out that the definition of capital goods given under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Modvat Rules) are similar to the definition of capital goods in Rule 2(b)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. 10. On the other hand the only contention in support of the order dated 2nd March, 2005 urged by the appellant-Revenue was that the machines/equipments have been used by M/s. S.S. Engineers to manufacture a sugar plant. Therefore, it is M/s. S.S. Engineers alone who would be entitled to take credit of duty paid on the inputs. Thus, the appellant cannot take credit on the so-called capital goods. The decisions relied upon by the respondent were distinguished on the ground that the same was rendered in the context of Rule 57Q of the Modvat Rules and would have no application in interpreting of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. 11. On consideration of the above submissions, the impugned order dated 30th October, 2006 allowed the respondent''s appeal. This by placing reliance upon the orders of its Coordinate Benches in case of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2001 (130) E.L.T. 129 (Tri.-Delhi) and Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III v. N.R.C. Ltd., 2001 (135) E.L.T. 1012 (Tri.-Mumbai). Although both these decisions were rendered in the context of Rule 57Q of the Modvat Rules, it was held that the principle therein would be applicable even in respect of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. 12. Although both these decisions were rendered in the context of Rule 57Q of the Modvat Rules, it was held that the principle therein would be applicable even in respect of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. 12. The Revenue being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30th October, 2006 of the Tribunal is in appeal before us. 13. Before dealing with the rival submissions, it would be useful to reproduce the provisions relevant to the substantial question of law, which arises for our consideration. The relevant provisions are as under :- (I) Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, RULE 2 - Definitions. - In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires - (a) "Act"means the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944); (b) "capital goods"means, - (i) all goods falling under Chapter 82, Chapter 84, Chapter 85, Chapter 90, Heading No. 68.02 and sub-heading No. 6801.10 of the First Schedule to the Tariff Act; (ii) pollution control equipment (iii) components, spares and accessories of the goods specified at (i) and (ii) above; (iv) moulds and dies; (v) refractories and refractory material; (vi) tubes and pipes and fittings thereof; and (vii) storage tank, used in the factory of the manufacturer of the final products, but does not include any equipment or appliance used in an office. (c) ....................... (d) ....................... (e) ....................... (f) ....................... (g) "input"means all goods, except [light diesel oil] high speed diesel oil and motor spirit, commonly known as petrol, used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products whether directly or indirectly and whether contained in the final product or not, and includes lubricating oils, greases, cutting oils, coolants, accessories of the final products cleared along with the final product, goods used as paint or as packing material, or as fuel, or for generation of electricity or steam used for manufacture of final products or for any other purpose, within the factory of production. Explanation-1 The light diesel oil, high speed diesel oil or motor spirit, commonly known as petrol, shall not be treated as an input for any purpose whatsoever. Explanation-2 Inputs include goods used in the manufacture of capital goods which are further used in the factory of the manufacturer; RULE 3. Cenvat credit - (1) A manufacturer or producer of final products shall be allowed to take credit (hereinafter referred to as the Cenvat credit) of - (i) ....................... (ii) ....................... (iii) ....................... (iv) ....................... Explanation-2 Inputs include goods used in the manufacture of capital goods which are further used in the factory of the manufacturer; RULE 3. Cenvat credit - (1) A manufacturer or producer of final products shall be allowed to take credit (hereinafter referred to as the Cenvat credit) of - (i) ....................... (ii) ....................... (iii) ....................... (iv) ....................... (v) ....................... (vi) ....................... paid on any inputs or capital goods received in the factory on or after the first day of March, 2002, including the said duties paid on any inputs used in the manufacture of intermediate products, by a jobworker availing the benefit of exemption specified in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 214/86-Central Excise, dated the 25th March, 1986, published vide number G.S.R. 547(E), dated the 25th March, 1986 and received by the manufacturer for use in, or in relation to, the manufacture of final products, on or after the first day of March, 2002." 14. Mr. Kantharia, Learned Counsel in support of the appeal submits as under - (a) No Cenvat credit is available to the respondent on the capital goods as claimed. This for the reason that the capital goods have, in fact, been used as inputs for setting up a sugar plant by M/s. S. S. Engineers. Thus, the capital goods have lost their identity as such and would be inputs for the sugar plant. Therefore, the only person who can claim Cenvat credit on the so-called capital goods is M/s. S.S. Engineers; (b) The view of the Tribunal in S.S, Engineers v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2008 (221) E.L.T. 54 (Tri. - Mumbai) holding that no excise duty is payable on the set up sugar plant. This, as it is an immovable property and does not satisfy the test of goods viz. marketability. The above view of the Tribunal was upheld by this Court in Commissioner v. M/s. S.S. Engineers [2008 (232) E.L.T. A200 (Bom.)]. This, by following the decision of the Supreme Court in Trivani Engineering & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [ 2000 (120) E.L.T. 273 . marketability. The above view of the Tribunal was upheld by this Court in Commissioner v. M/s. S.S. Engineers [2008 (232) E.L.T. A200 (Bom.)]. This, by following the decision of the Supreme Court in Trivani Engineering & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [ 2000 (120) E.L.T. 273 . Therefore, it is submitted there can be no carry forward of the duty paid on the inputs used in the setting up of a plant i.e. immovable property to be utilized in payment of duty on manufacture of the final product; (c) Besides, reliance is also placed upon the decision of this Court in Bharti Airtel v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune [2014 (35) S.T.R. 865 (Bom.)] wherein it is held that no Cenvat credit is available in respect of an immovable property i.e. towers etc. The same it is submitted to apply to the present facts. 15. As against the above, Ms. Patil, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits as under - (a) It is undisputed that what has been received by the respondent in its factory on which Cenvat credit is claimed, are capital goods as defined in Rule 2(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. It is also not disputed that these inputs are used in the factory of the respondent. Thus, the goods on which the Cenvat credit is claimed further satisfies the requirement of use in the factory as required under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. Thus, on bare reading of the provisions, the respondent is entitled to avail of the Cenvat credit as done by them; (b) The only contention of the respondent was that the credit on the so-called capital goods would be available only to M/s. S.S. Engineers who had set up/assembled the sugar plant. Thus, on bare reading of the provisions, the respondent is entitled to avail of the Cenvat credit as done by them; (b) The only contention of the respondent was that the credit on the so-called capital goods would be available only to M/s. S.S. Engineers who had set up/assembled the sugar plant. However, the Court having held that sugar plant is not chargeable to tax, does not in terms of the law as existing at the relevant time, deprive the respondent of the credit of duty paid on the capital goods received and used in their factory; and (c) Lastly, the issue whether the Cenvat credit of the duty paid on machines/equipments used in setting up a immovable property is available to the respondent in whose factory the immovable property is set up to take Cenvat credit and utilize the same in payment of duty on final product has been accepted by the Revenue in law. This has been so held by the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise v. JSW Ispat Steel Ltd. [2013-TIOL-1758-CESTAT-Mum. = 2015 (327) E.L.T. 549 (Tribunal)]. This decision of the Tribunal has been accepted by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. In support, our attention was invited to a print out, downloaded from www.cbic.gov.in a site of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs - wherein the above decision of the Tribunal in JSW Ispat Steel Ltd. (supra) on this very issue was accepted as being legal and proper. Thus, in fairness the issue is no longer res integra and the appeal should be withdrawn by the Revenue. 16. The purpose/object of the Cenvat Credit Rules and its predecessor Modvat Rules was to avoid cascading effect of taxes. This, in turn, relieve/reduced the burden of tax which is borne by the final consumers, as it avoids tax on taxes. Thus, while considering the question framed, one must not lose sight of the fact that the purpose and object of the Cenvat Credit Rules is to avoid the snowballing effect of taxes. Therefore, Cenvat Credit Rules have to be interpreted in a manner to ensure that the purpose/object of the Cenvat Scheme is achieved. This, of course, without doing violence to the plain language of the statute and/or Rules. 17. Therefore, Cenvat Credit Rules have to be interpreted in a manner to ensure that the purpose/object of the Cenvat Scheme is achieved. This, of course, without doing violence to the plain language of the statute and/or Rules. 17. The undisputed facts before us are as under :- (a) The final product of the respondent is excisable under the Act; (b) The equipments/machines received at the factory of the respondent on which the Cenvat credit is being claimed, are capital goods in terms of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 as is evident from the fact that the credit availed is being restricted in the show cause notice to 50% in each year; (c) The capital goods are received under cenventable invoices bearing the name and address of the respondent; (d) The capital goods are, in fact, used in the factory of the respondent, for setting up of a sugar plant which is not excisable being an immovable property. Thus, outside the pale of the Act. 18. On plain reading of the Rule 2(b) and 3 of the Credit Rules, 2002, it is clear that the capital goods in the present facts had been received in the respondent''s factory and used in the factory. Thus, the duty paid on this capital goods is available to the respondent, to be taken as Cenvat credit as it is duly supported by appropriate cenventable invoices. It is not the case of the Revenue that the machines/equipments are not relating to manufacture of final products. The only case of the Revenue is that these machines/equipments lose their identity as they became a part of the set up plant and have to work along with other machines/equipments to manufacture final products. This submission of the subject equipment/machines losing its identity in the sugar plant is contrary to the show cause notice as it proceeds on the basis that it is capital goods, as it restricts the allowance only to 50% of the credit for each year of use. Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 requires the receipt of the capital goods in the factory for use in or in relation to manufacture of final products. The subject equipments/machines are undoubtedly used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 requires the receipt of the capital goods in the factory for use in or in relation to manufacture of final products. The subject equipments/machines are undoubtedly used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. Thus, the literal rule of interpretation when applied to the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 would entitle the respondent to the benefit of Cenvat credit on the duty paid equipment/machines (capital goods). 19. The reliance by the appellant on the decision of the S.S. Engineers (supra), Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. (supra) would have no application to the facts which arise for our consideration. In both the above cases the Court was concerned with the issue whether duty is payable on an immovable property. In both the cases, the Court held that immovable property such as a sugar plant is not goods and, therefore, not excisable. In none of the above two cases, the issue arising for our consideration viz. whether duty paid on capital goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, would not be available, if the same are used in the factory of the manufacture to set up the plant which, in turn, is used in the manufacture of final products. Thus, the reliance upon the above decisions does not assist the appellant-Revenue. 20. So far as reliance upon the decision in Bharti Airtel (supra) is concerned, the basic/fundamental difference in facts, is that the Cenvat credit in the above case, was being sought to be taken on towers and parts of tower, prefabricated buildings, printers and office chairs all of which were not falling under definitions of capital goods given in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In the present facts, the show cause notice itself proceeds on the basis that the subject equipments/machines do fall within the definition of capital goods as given in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. Thus, the decisions of this Court in Bharti Airtel (supra) is inapplicable to the present facts. 21. It is also to be noticed that independent of our findings as rendered above, we find that on an identical issue arose before the Tribunal in JSW Ispat (supra). In the aforesaid case also (as here), the machines/equipments were used to set up/assemble an oxygen plant i.e. immovable property in the factory of the assessee. 21. It is also to be noticed that independent of our findings as rendered above, we find that on an identical issue arose before the Tribunal in JSW Ispat (supra). In the aforesaid case also (as here), the machines/equipments were used to set up/assemble an oxygen plant i.e. immovable property in the factory of the assessee. This oxygen plant was issued to manufacture the excisable goods i.e. manufacture ingots falling under Chapter 72 of the Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Nevertheless, the Tribunal allowed of Cenvat credit of duty paid on machines/equipments used in setting up a plant, to be utilised on payments of duty on the final products viz. iron and steel ingots cleared by the assessee, therein. This decision of the Tribunal is on all fours in the present facts and was accepted by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs on the ground that the same is legal and proper. This as was shown to us by the respondent and not denied by the appellants. Moreover, no distinction in facts and law, is pointed out by the Revenue, which would justify its inapplicability to the present facts. In the face of the aforesaid decision taken by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, we are unable to understand why the Revenue is agitating this issue before us when in another case, decided by the Tribunal, raising an identical issue, the decision of the Tribunal has been accepted. 22. We are of the view that Rule of law prevailing in this country is one of the key elements to determine ease of doing business. The Rule of law inter alia ensures absence of arbitraries in taking decisions, which would mean equal applicability of law to all concerned. Therefore, an issue as raised herein (being a pure question of law), would have all India implication not only before the Court but at various levels of adjudication under the Act. Therefore, where at the highest level i.e. at the level of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, the Revenue has accepted a particular view on a pure question of law, then in all such cases, the Revenue should withdraw the show cause notices and/or pending proceedings. This would bring certainty in the minds of the trade as well as the Department and leading to reduction of litigation. This would bring certainty in the minds of the trade as well as the Department and leading to reduction of litigation. We would direct the Counsel for the Revenue/appellant before us to forward a copy of this order to the C.B.I. & C. to issue appropriate directions in the above regard. 23. For the aforesaid reasons, substantial question of law is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant-Revenue. 24. Accordingly appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.