9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pital goods under Rule 57Q. Those items were spares or parts/components of material handling and mining equipments used in the mines. The adjudicating authority considered two issues in the case, one of which was whether the Modvat credit taken on the goods not used in the registered premises (concentration plant) but used in the mine was admissible or not. That authority answered the question in the negative by holding that the mining area did not form part of the appellants factory. That authority held that only that premises which was approved by the proper officer in terms of Rule 44 could be accepted as factory, which, in the appellants case, was the concentration plant. Since the goods in respect of which the Modvat credit was taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is placed on the following decisions of the Tribunal :- (i) Rathi Ispat Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut [2000 (116) E.L.T. 50] (ii) H.E.G. Ltd. v. CCE, Indore [2001 (127) E.L.T. 235]. In the cited cases, various items, found to be parts of material-handling equipments used for movement of raw material, were held to be eligible capital goods under Rule 57Q. Ld. Consultant s emphasis, however, is on the applicability of the ratio of the apex Court s decision in Jaypee Rewa Cement (supra) to the present case. He prays for allowing the appeal. 2. Ld. JDR Sh. V.K. Verma refers to the annexure to the show-cause notice and submits that it was the concentration plant which was accepted as covered by the approved ground plan of the factory and not the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lower appellate authority. That authority, however, did not examine this challenge and chose to deny the Modvat credit to the assessee relying on the decision of the Tribunal s Larger Bench in Jaypee Rewa Cement (supra). The lower appellate authority ought to have given a finding on the above question of fact raised before it, before examining case law. An order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur in the present appellants own case has been cited by ld. consultant, but that order relates only to the mine at Rampura Agucha and does not deal with the other two mines of the appellants, located at Rajpura Dariba and Zawar. I do not see reason to accept the Jaipur Commissioner s finding in respect of the Rampura Agucha mine fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
