JUDGMENT : Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. This Central Excise Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1944’) has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.08.2003 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (CESTAT), New Delhi, whereby the relief prayed for therein, by the appellant, was declined by the learned CESTAT, while holding that the item in question i.e. capital goods, namely, Monitors of the Computer Control System (CCS) fall under the respective heading, were not eligible for MODVAT Credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1944’). 2. As the pleaded facts would reveal, the appellant, which is a Company duly registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, is engaged in the manufacture of Cement & Cliners, having its manufacturing activities conducted at Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. 2.1. It has been averred in the appeal that the item in question, namely, Monitors, as above, are used in the CCR of the Plant, which is fully controlled by the computers and the CCR has regulatory computers installed, for feeding various figures. Furthermore, the Monitor is the screen on which the figures after feeding in the computer can be seen or read, thus, the same being an integral part of the whole system of business. Hence, there is a direct nexus between the plant and the items, including the item in question in the CCR. 2.2. Towards the items i.e. Monitor’s type and A.C.S.R. Conductor, aluminum and spares for engine (Sulger) Z 40/48 the appellant availed MODVAT Credit, for which a show cause notice dated 31.01.2000 was served upon it, by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Department, Chittorgarh, indicating therein that the said MODVAT Credit, which was to the tune of Rs.1,97,941/- was taken by the appellant, despite the fact that the said items do not fall within the definition of Capital Goods, under Rule 57-Q/57-T of the Rules of 1944; thereby such amount was sought to be held as recoverable from the appellant. 2.3. 2.3. To the aforesaid show cause notice, the appellant submitted a detailed reply on 29.03.2000, but the respondent No.2 (adjudicating authority) being not satisfied with the same, passed an order dated 31.05.2000, whereby though allowed the MODVAT Credit of Rs.63,361/-, but disallowed the amount of MODVAT credit to the tune of Rs.1,34,580/- to the appellant; also imposed a penalty of RS.2,000/- upon the appellant under Rule 173Q(1) (bb) of the Rules of 1944. 2.4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 31.05.2000, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35 of the Act of 1944, which was partly allowed vide order dated 16.04.2002 with respect to ACSR Conductor, Aluminum, holding that the Monitor’s type falling under the respective heading are specifically excluded in view of insertion of the heading in the exclusion clause of the table appearing in Rule 57Q of the Rules of 1944. 2.5. Against the order dated 16.04.2002, the appellant preferred an appeal before the learned CESTAT, which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 19.08.2003. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 4. While admitting the present appeal and issuance notice thereof, this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 20.01.2010 observed that the following substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal: “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, monitors of Computer Control System installed in Central Control Room (CCR) in the factory of the appellant are not integral part of the manufacturing process and thus not eligible for MODVAT Credit under Central Excise Rules, 1944?” 5. This Court observes that the issue involved in the present appeal pertains to allowability of MODVAT Credit on capital goods, namely, Monitors type. 6. This Court has considered that the Monitors type are accessories installed in the CCR of the Plant and helps in regulating the computers and feeding various figures regulating the functioning of the Plant, which includes the speed of introduction of the raw material. 7. The law which has been argued before this Court by the appellant is that the Monitors of the CCR were not eligible for MODAVAT Credit under Rule 57-Q of the Rules of 1944 as they were not influencing the manufacturing of the final product. 8. A Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in its judgment rendered in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. 8. A Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in its judgment rendered in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2008 (132) ECC 3, has held thus: “6. This appeal was admitted on 13th January, 2006, by framing the following substantial question of law: “Whether welding electrodes used for repairs and maintenance of plant and machinery are eligible for CENVAT credit both as capital goods as well as inputs.” 7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the Judgment in Jaypee Rewa Plant's case, as relied upon by the learned Counsel for the department, and have also gone through the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in CCE v. Jawahar Mills reported in MANU/ SC/0397/2001MANU/SC/0397/2001:2001(132)ELT3 (SC), relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. 8. In Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jawahar's case, it is held, that capital goods can be machines, machinery, plant equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances. Any of these goods, if used for producing, or processing of any goods, or for bringing about any change in any substance, for the manufacture of final product, would be 'capital goods', and would qualify for MODVAT credit. Then as per clause-b the components, spare parts and accessories of the goods mentioned above, would also be capital goods, and would qualify for MODVAT credit. Then moulds and dies, generating sets, and weigh etc. has four also been held to be eligible for MODVAT credit, even if they are not used for producing the final product, or used for process of any product, for the manufacture of final product, or used for bringing about any change in any substance, for the manufacture of final product. The only requirement is, that the same should be used in the factory of the manufacturer, thus, it was held, that the language is to be interpreted very liberally. Then the contention of the Revenue, about the goods involved, being not satisfying the requirement of capital goods, was negatived on the ground, that it was not the case of the Revenue, set up all through. 9. On the other hand in JP Rewa's case the eligibility of credit was denied, which was claimed as "inputs". Then the contention of the Revenue, about the goods involved, being not satisfying the requirement of capital goods, was negatived on the ground, that it was not the case of the Revenue, set up all through. 9. On the other hand in JP Rewa's case the eligibility of credit was denied, which was claimed as "inputs". Then so far as the claim made for MODVAT credit on the basis of it being capital goods, it was denied only on the ground, that in the declaration, it was not so claimed, and the Assessee has not even furnished details of any capital goods for captive consumption, to enable the adjudicating Authority to ascertain, whether such goods were covered by definition of capital goods. Thus, for want of evidence to show, that any part of any electrodes, and gases, was used in the manufacture of any capital goods for captive consumption, the claim was negated. 10. In our view, the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in JK Cottons SPG. & WVG Mills Co. Ltd v. Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur reported in 1997 (91) ELT 34 has a 5 material bearing on the controversy involved in the present case. It may be noticed, that the Tribunal in J.P. Rewa case has referred to this Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in JK Cotton's case, by reproducing a part of the headnote, but then, the very significant continuing next sentence has been omitted from consideration, in as much as the sentence following the portion quoted by the Tribunal, is as under: They need not be ingredients or commodities used in the processes, nor must they be directly and actually needed for turning out or the creation of goods. 11. In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court even went to the extent of holding, that use of electrical equipments, like lighting, electrical humidifiers, exhaust fan etc. were also taken to be necessary equipment, to effectively carry on the manufacturing process. 11. In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court even went to the extent of holding, that use of electrical equipments, like lighting, electrical humidifiers, exhaust fan etc. were also taken to be necessary equipment, to effectively carry on the manufacturing process. Thus, with the above, if the quoted part of the Judgment in JK Cotton's case is read, it becomes clear, that the expression "in the manufacture of goods" should normally encompass entire process carried on by the dealer, of converting raw materials into finished goods, where any particular process, or activity, is so integrally connected with the ultimate production of the goods, but for that process, manufacturing, or processing of the goods would be commercially inexpedient, goods required in that process would, fall within expression "in the manufacturing of goods". 12. In our view the proposition propounded above sets the controversy at rest. The question, as framed, is accordingly required to be answered in favour of the Assessee. 13. We are not inclined to accept the logic and reason given in the JP Rewa Plant Mills's case, and following the letter and spirit of the JK Cotton's case coupled with Jawaharmal's case, set aside the Order of the Authorities below. 14. In view of the above discussion, the question so framed, is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the revenue. Resultantly the appeal is allowed. Impugned Order is set aside. The Appellant is held to be entitled to the credit as availed. The notice issued by the Dy. Commissioner accordingly stands quashed, and the proceedings dropped.” 9. The parameters are undisputed, though the question there, was whether the welding electrodes used for repairs and maintenance of plant and machinery are eligible for CENVAT credit both as capital goods as well as inputs, or not, to which the Hon’ble Court laid down the law in para 8 while relying on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CCE Vs. Jawahar Mills, 2001 (132) ELT 3 (SC), that the capital goods can be machines, machinery, plant equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances, and if any of these goods, are used for producing, or processing of any goods or bringing about any change in any substance, for the manufacturing of the final product, then they would be capital goods, and would qualify for MODVAT Credit. 9.1. 9.1. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Jawahar Mills (supra) went to the extent of saying that even the moulds, dies, generating sets and weigh etc., having been held eligible for MODVAT Credit, though they were not used for producing the final product, or used for processing of any product, for the manufacturing of final product or used for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacturing of the final product. 9.2. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the only requirement was that the same should be used in the factory of the manufacturer, and thus, it was held that the language is to be interpreted very liberally. 10. Thus, in the present case also, where the Monitors type are in question, clearly fall within the realm of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, because such Monitors are part of plant machinery and plant equipment and required for regulating the production process, and if a liberal construction is given to the averment of the appellant, to the effect that the same are used in the factory by the manufacturer, the contention of the respondents about the goods involved not satisfying the requirement of capital goods deserves negation and the same is hereby negated. 10.1. On fulfilling such parameters and while applying the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and finding that though the Monitors are not ingredients or commodities used in the process, they are directly and actually needed for creation of the goods more efficiently. Even so much so, the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken the electrical equipments, like lighting, electrical humidifiers, exhaust fan etc., to be necessary equipments, to effectively carry on the manufacturing process. The Monitors type which are used for CCR of the Plant in question and used by the manufacturer to control the regulating computers making it possible to regulate the plant from there, is nothing but a part of the process of manufacturing. 11. In light of the aforesaid observations and the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the substantial question of law, so framed, as above, is accordingly answered in favour of the appellant (Assessee) and against the Revenue. 11.1. The present appeal stands allowed accordingly, while quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 19.08.2003. All pending applications stand disposed of.