1999 (5) TMI 211

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad has disallowed Modvat credit of Rs. 33,53,668.68 on decorated glass bottles used by the appellants herein who are manufacturers of aerated waters, on the ground that they are not capital goods under Rule 57Q, and credit is not available under Rule 5 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ncluded or had not been included during the preceding financial year in the assessable value of the final products under Section 4 of the Act , and to the case of Delhi Bottling Co. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh reported in 1999 (105) E.L.T. 42. This decision was for the period after 1-3-1994 when duty on aerated waters became ad valorem. We over-rule the objection of the learned DR that the costing data .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... essees have not filed any appeal against the Assistant Collector s order [the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed by the Revenue against the extension of credit by the Assistant Collector on glass bottles]. We, therefore, hold that credit is not available on tiles/ceramic goods and powder syrup and hardener. 4. In the result the appeal partly succeeds. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Ce .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X