9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vat credits availed by them as Capital goods and inputs respectively on certain items in violation of the provision of Rules 57Q and 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On considering the reply of the party, the Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 25-3-1998 allowed the credit of Rs. 17,92,210/- on the capital goods but disallowed credit of Rs. 8,61,866/- and Rs. 23,052/- under Rule 57U and 57-I respectively and ordered for their recovery. The party filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh vide his order dated 15-7-1999 partially admitted their appeal but disallowed the credits on the following items:- Sr. No. Items Credit amount (Rs.) Reason for disallowing Remarks 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r sub-rule (2) of Rule 57T. The learned Advocate for the appellants submits that this intimation would satisfy the requirement of sub-rule (1) of Rule 57T. He submits that on the ground of not filing the declaration alone the Modvat credit cannot be denied to the appellants. In this regard, he relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Surya Lata Spinning Mills v. C.C.E. - 1999 (111) E.L.T. 158, the ratio of which is also followed in the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd.v. C.C.E., Chennai - 2000 (90) E.C.R. 509 (T). With regard to the denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 23,057/-, the learned Counsel submits that these items were used for fabrication of FRP Lining of Tanks at site and such lining materia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent purpose and cannot substitute each other. If the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants is accepted, it would make the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 57T redundant which is not permissible under the law. The reliance placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Surya Lata Spinning Mills, referred to supra is also misplaced since the issue in that case did not relate to not filing of the declaration under 57T(1). In this the appellants had filed the declaration under this sub-rule (1) which is evident from the following observations in para 10 of the said decision :- (i) In this connection we also note that the show cause notice has not alleged that the declaration under Rule 57T(1) (general declara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a part of furnace and covered by the definition of C.G. under Rule 57Q. 10. Ceramic Fibres. - This is used for furnace lining to control the heat losses which is essential for maintaining furnace temperature at desired level and therefore credit on the same is admissible. 6. In view of the above findings on facts in respect of each of the items, these items are covered under the definition of capital goods provided under Rule 57Q. The ratio of the decision of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Indore v. Surya Roshani - 2001 (128) E.L.T. 293 (T-LB) and the judgment of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Siv Industries - [2001 (129) E.L.T. 48 (Madras) = (2001 (43) R.L.T. 523 (Madras)] is applicable in favou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
