9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt case since the capacity of generating sets is 35 KV, the appellant is not entitled to take credit. 3. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. However, it was submitted by them that the matter may be decided based upon the written submissions filed by them. It was submitted by them that according to the Department a more specific and positive description of the goods is enumerated in Rule 57Q(1)(d)(v) of Central Excise Rules but this aversion overlooks the fact that concurrent with this entry in the wording in Rule 57Q(1)(c) viz. moulds and dies, generating sets and weigh bridges used in the factory of the manufacturer also stood without amendment. Further it was submitted that having purchased a generating sets of capacity only 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avail the credit. I am inclined to accept this contention of the appellants since an addition to the list of eligible goods should not have the effect of restricting the eligibility of an already existing item. Further, it is seen that by Notification 14/96-C.E. (N.T.), dated 23-7-96, explanation to capital goods was again amended, accordingly to which no restriction was imposed for credit on generating sets. Hence, it cannot be construed that there was some legislative intention to restrict the credit on generating sets of output not exceeding 75 KVA. Thus it is felt that justice would require that the benefit of Modvat credit should be extended to the appellant in terms of Clause (1)(c) of Explanation to Rule 57Q(1) of Central Excise Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 75 KVA falling under Heading 85.02 were also included. Clause (d) was inserted without amending Clause (c). Accordingly both the clauses continue to exist. In the facts and circumstances particularly in view of the fact that it was mentioned in the order that it was only generating set, there was no justification in denying the benefit on the ground that capacity of generating set was of 35 KVA. Since there was no such restriction with reference to Clause (c) and Clause (c) also continues apart from Clause (d), I do not find any justification in denying the benefit. In view of this position, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly appeal filed by the Department is hereby dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
