9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 968X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent. [Order]. In this appeal of the Revenue, the appellant is represented by ld. JDR, Shri Hitesh Shah. The respondents have waived personal hearing and have requested for a decision on merits. 2. I have heard ld. JDR, who has reiterated the grounds of the appeal. 3. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing Modvat credit to the assessee on vario ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L.T. 655. As against this decision of the Tribunal, relied on by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue in the present appeal has not cited any better authority. Hence Modvat credit requires to be admitted on Refractory Bricks, Refractory Items and Clay Graphite Stopper Head. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the Tribunal s decision in the case of Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. v. CCE - 1996 (87 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the material period, the item has to be treated as inputs in view of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in case of Rathi Udyog Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut - 2000 (121) E.L.T. 524 (Tri - LB) = 2000 (38) RLT 551 (Tribunal) and Modvat credit on Grinding Wheels has to be allowed to the assessee under Rule 57A. 4. In view of the findings already recorded, the present appeal fails and the same i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
