9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Transmission Line Tower Material. In the manufacture of their product they claim to use Hydraulic Mobile Crane in respect of which they had claimed credit of duty under Rule 57-Q. The Assistant Collector did not allow such availment of credit on the ground that such facility would be available only for capital goods used for producing or processing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out only with mobile crane by dipping the structurals made by them in the molten metal. He relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Collector of Central Excise v. Rajasthan Chemical Works 1991 (55) E.L.T. 444. This judgement of the Supreme Court had been relied upon by the Tribunal in a recent judgement in Commissioner of Central Excise, Triuchirapalli v. M.M. Forgings Ltd. reported in 1997 (89) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in question cannot be said to be used for the manufacture or processing of goods. He pleaded that the appeal may be dismissed and the order in appeal sustained. 4. The submissions of both the sides have been duly taken note of by me. I have also perused the decisions cited at the Bar. In the Novo Udyog Ltd. case, it was held that the wider meaning of capital goods under Rule 57-Q would cover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory without the use of which they would not be able to manufacture the final product. In the present case, the impugned order as well as the preceding order in original had been passed on the proposition that the credit under Rule 57-Q is not used in the manufacture of the final product but only for handling of material from one place to another which does not amount to use for producing or proces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
