9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ni, Member (J)]. Arguing the Reference Application Shri M.P. Devnath, ld. Advocate submitted that by its Final Order No. A/1103/97-NB [1997 (96) E.L.T. 554 (T)], the Tribunal had held that Evaporator Boats would not be eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A. He submitted that on this point there were also contrary decisions of the Tribunal. Impugned order had followed the earlier decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment s contention that evaporation boats were parts of machinery. He also referred in this connection to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Apar Appliance reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 561, referring the question whether (sic) was `appliance for purposes of Rule 57A. He submitted that in view of the variation in the orders passed by the various Benches of the Tribunal, a question of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Union Carbide of India Ltd. reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613 are not aplicable to the present case. 2. The Departmental Representative Shri A.M. Tilak agreed that there were conflicting decisions of the various benches of the Tribunal on the question of Modvat credit being allowed under Rule 57A to evaporator boats and on the questions whether they were tools and equipment. 3. The p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uipment. Machinery and equipment was held to be specifically excluded from the definition of input under Explanation Rule 57A vide M.P. Polypropylene Ltd. case (Supra). It had been held that evaporator boats in the form of bowls in which aluminium wires were placed for heat treatment were clearly in the nature of tools and equipments. 4. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
