9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pter sub- heading 8418 and 8414 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Show Cause Notice dated 7th August, 1995 was issued charging the appellants for violating provisions of Rules 57A and 57G of the Central Excise Rules holding that they have wrongly availed Modvat credit in respect of the item "Forklift Truck" as an input as such inputs are fallen within the ambit of definition of input. A reply dated 8th August, 1995 was filed inter alia quoting the judgment of the Tribunal in TELCO's case reported in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 75 and also the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Chemical Works' case reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 444. The adjudicating authority viz. the Addl. Commissioner dropped the Show Cause following the judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be granted so that he can study the matter and cite some cases which are in department's favour. He also argued that "Forklift Truck" is not coming the ambit of Rule 57A but it will come only within the ambit of Rule 57Q. He states that it is not used in the manufacturing process of the final product. He states the interpretation of Rule 57A one has to look into the exclusionary portion mentioned in Rule 57A. He states that what is inclusionary portion in Rule 57Q is exclusionary portion of Rule 57A. He, therefore states that the "Forklift" is nothing but a machinery within the ambit of exclusionary portion of Rule 57A. 5. I have considered the very interesting argument made by Shri Ramteke, ld. JDR. It is an admitted fact that whenever ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a part of the continuous process but in which the manufacture would be impossible and the handling of the materials for the purpose of its transfer is integrally connected with the process of manufacture clearly applies to the instant case on hand. The argument of the ld. DR is completely answered by the observation made by the Tribunal in the appellant's own case cited (supra). Ld. DR is unable to distinguish the said case by means of any other evidence nor is it possible for him to lodge any evidence because this is the appellate stage. Show Cause Notice does not mention any evidence in this case. The foundation has to be laid in the SCN in a quasi judicial proceedings. This is absent in this case. Hence the department's case cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
