9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise dis-allowed the capital goods-credit of duty taken by the party during the period August-December, 1995 in respect of certain items of goods. The Assistant Commissioner did so, holding that the goods were not covered by the definition of 'capital goods' under Rule 57Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules. In the appeal filed by the party against the Assistant Commissioner's order, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) reversed the A.C.'s finding in respect of the goods named below and held the same to be 'capital goods' eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q ibid :- 1. Fuse Failure Board. 2. Spares for measuring equipments (Vibrotest). 3. NGEF Thyristors. 3. The Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Shanmugraja Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 84 and has submitted that, going by the ratio of the said decision of the Tribunal, none of the goods in question in the present case would fall under the category of capital goods under Rule 57Q ibid. The appellant - Revenue had not furnished copies of the show-cause notice and the reply thereto, as usual. The said copies have been produced by the counsel for the respondents as directed by the Bench. On a perusal of these records, I observe that the respondents had replied to the show-cause notice in abundant details. Regarding the nature of use of the aforesaid goods, the party had given a detailed account as extracted below :- 1. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present appeal, nor have the appellants challenged the findings of the lower appellate authority with regard to such use of the goods in question. 6. I have also heard the learned JDR, Shri D.K. Nayyar for the appellant-Revenue and the learned advocate Shri Sanjay Grover for the respondents. The learned JDR has reiterated the grounds of appeal. The learned Advocate has opposed the submissions of the learned JDR and has drawn my attention to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Siel Sugar v. CCE, Meerut reported in 1998 (99) E.L.T. 54 (T) wherein it was held that measuring and checking instruments, being process control equipments were essential for manufacture of final products and hence, eligible for capital goods credit under Rule 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
