9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 1180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4,045.20 was disallowed to the respondent by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the capital goods, in respect of which the credit was taken, were not specifically covered by Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Pules by virtue of the fact that the goods were not covered under Chapter Headings 85.16 and 85.39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. This decision of the adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had an apprehension that they had no good case in view of the Tribunal s Larger Bench decision in Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. CCE [1999 (108) E.L.T. 47]. The Revenue s appeal against that decision has been dismissed by the Supreme Court vide 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). The decisions relied on by the appellant, under Grounds 1 to 3, are also not good law after the decision in Jawahar Mills (supra). 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly excluded from the coverage of modvatable capital goods under Sl. No. 3, did not belong to the category of goods covered by, or specified against, Sl. No. 3 . Therefore, components or parts of goods falling under CH 85.16 and 85.39 did not come within the description of goods under Sl. No. 5 of the Table to Rule 57Q as this rule stood during the material period, i.e., after 1-3-97. The lower ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
