9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Hitesh Shah, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. The appellants had taken Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on D.G. Set (as capital goods) purchased from an unregistered dealer of its manufacturer on 18-7-94. The department, by show-cause notice, proposed to disallow the credit on the ground that the invoice on the strength of which the credit had been take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the department against the order of the Assistant Commissioner was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), who held that Notification No. 64/94-C.E. (N.T.) was not applicable to a case of availment of Modvat credit on capital goods. Hence the present appeal. 2. Shri Hemant Khandelwal, representative of the appellant-company, submits that the impugned order was passed in violation of the princi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 57H which contained certain transitional provisions governing Modvat credit on inputs. Rule 57H had nothing to do with credit on capital goods. Therefore, argues ld. DR, Notification No. 64/94-C.E. (N.T.) had also nothing to do with capital goods credit and hence inapplicable to the present case. 3. I have considered the submissions. I have found on record a copy of the appellants letter dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd, therefore, it was not applicable to a case of capital goods credit. Neither in that Notification nor in any other provision of law cited by the appellants have I found anything to support the appellant s case that Notification No. 64/94-C.E. (N.T.) was applicable equally to inputs-credit and capital goods credit. The lower appellate authority has rightly found that the adjudicating authority w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
