9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Order, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that the issue involved i.e. Fork Lift Crane is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. J.K. Synthetics Limited v. C.C.E., Jaipur [1996 (88) E.L.T. 785 (T) = 1996 (17) RLT 98] and in the case of M/s. M.M. Forgings Ltd. v. C.C.E., Tiruchirapalli [1997 (89) E.L.T. 617 (T) = 1996 (15) RLT 374] held in favour of the Assessee. Therefore t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture of the final products. It was also alleged that Fork Lift Trucks/Cranes is not machine, plant or equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances which is used for manufacture of the final product or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of the final product, as such does not come within the expression of capital goods for the purpose of Rule 57Q. The Respondent-Assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of Rule 57Q. He submits that since a Reference has already been allowed by the Tribunal, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the Appeals may be allowed. 4. Shri M.P. Devnath, the ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondent-Assessees submits that in addition to the Tribunal s decision in the case of C.C.E., Meerut v. Nova Udyog (supra), there are other decisions of the Tribunal co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terials as well as final product, they are used in the process of manufacture of the final product. The ld. Counsel, therefore, submitted that the impugned order may be upheld and the Appeals may be rejected. 6. Heard the submissions of both sides. Perused the case law cited and relied upon by the Respondents as well as by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). I find that Fork Lift Trucks and Cranes a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Fork Lift / Crane in the process of manufacture and concluded that they are used in the process of manufacture, I do not see any reason to disagree with these findings. In these circumstances and following the ratio of the decision cited by the Respondents and relied upon by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), I hold that Modvat credit has rightly been held as admissible on these items. In the resul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
