1998 (2) TMI 374

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The issue is common in both these appeals and they are disposed of by this order. 2. Each of the respondent is a manufacturer of twisting machines. In 1987 each of the respondents filed declaration under Rule 57G (1) for the purpose of taking Modvat credit for the manufacture of these machines. Among the inputs declared was aluminium bobbins. Each of the declarations was acknowledged by the A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rtment the fact that it was using bobbins. 3. The Additional Collector did not agree that the bobbins were an input. He said that therefore, credit could not have been taken on the duty paid on them. He however, held that the demands were barred by limitation since the assessees had brought to the notice of the department the fact that it would treat the bobbins as an input. Hence these appeals .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... necessary that for a commodity to be an input used or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, it has necessarily to form a part of it. There are innumerable decisions to support this view. Therefore, I cannot agree that the assessees ought to have known that the bobbins were not inputs nor can it be said they did know that they were not inputs and despite that knowledge deliberately .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X