9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal. The appellant is represented by ld. SDR, Ms. Krishna A. Mishra. There is no representation for the respondents. However, their counsel by letter dated 7-12-2001, has requested for a decision on merits. In the said letter, he has also relied on the Tribunal s decision in the case of CCE v. Metro Tyres Ltd. [2001 (127) E.L.T. 784] and CCE v. Bhag Polymers [2001 (128) E.L.T. 142] in addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Madhya Pradesh. It has been specifically stated in this appeal that the items in question were used for the proper functioning of the machinery at best could be treated as parts of machinery. Apparently, the appellant s only objection is against allowing credit on the goods as inputs. 2. Ms. Krishna A. Mishra, SDR has reiterated the above grounds of the appeal. Fairly enough, in answer to a qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the High Court s decision. It also appears that a decision is yet to be obtained from the High Court of M.P. on the question of law referred to that court from the case of Steel Ingots Ltd. (supra). In the circumstances, I have to accept the appellant s contention that the goods under reference could only be capital goods and could never be inputs. It is held that the goods will be eligible as cap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
