1999 (5) TMI 94

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad. 2. In this case the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of Refractory Cement was denied to the appellant on the ground that refractory cement do not confirm the definition of capital goods as provided under Rule 57Q to the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appella .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad, reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T. 530 (Tribunal) held that steel structure and the cement used in the erection and fabrication of blast furnace is a building material and not a capital goods and hence is not eligible for Modvat credit. He also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) Board of R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ace. Therefore, the facts of the case relied upon by the Revenue are different. In the other case relied upon by the Revenue the Tribunal held that the goods used for the maintenance of kiln had not be used in the manufacture of final product. In the present case as noticed above, the refractory cement is used for the lining of the furnace and the issue is whether it is a capital goods under Rule .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X