1997 (7) TMI 357

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er (T)]. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron and imported certain plant and machinery under project import. On certain parts and components they claimed Modvat credit as capital goods. The lower authorities did not allow them, the benefit of Modvat credit on `refractory Bricks `through flow mixer and `conveyor belt on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and `conveyor belt on which Modvat credit of countervailing/additional duty paid at the time of the import has been denied. Similar issue came before the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Union Carbide v. CCE reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613 (Tribunal) = 1996 (15) RLT 144 wherein this Tribunal held that `refractory bricks are not covered by the exclusion clause of the explanation und .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... `through flow mixer . Conveyor belt is nothing but material handling equipment. We find that this Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Uttam Industrial Engineering Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 498 held that the assessee will be eligible for Modvat credit as it is a material handling equipment. The Tribunal further in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Nova Udyog .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X