9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (Appeals) under the impugned Order or under sub-heading No. 7326.90 of the Tariff as claimed by Revenue. 2. Shri V. Valte, learned SDR, submitted that the Deputy Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 220/2002-2003, dated 3-7-2002 has classified the Pallets under sub-heading 7326.90 of the Tariff and disallowed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 67/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995 on the ground that Pallets are not parts of fork lift trucks since the fork lift trucks are complete without the impugned Pallets and Heading 73.26 is not covered by Notification No. 67/95-CE; that, however, on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned Order, has allowed the Respondent s appeal on the ground that the Pallets are material handlin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iable under Heading 73.26. Finally, he submitted that Heading 73.26 is not covered by the definition of Capital Goods and accordingly benefit of Notification No. 67/95-CE is not available to the Respondents. 3. On the other hand, Shri Ravi Holani, learned Chartered Accountant, submitted that hand trolly or fork lift that is mechanical equipment for material handling process have no use unless and until the particular structure of iron/steel or aluminium is put up on such trolly or fork lift; that such structure must be specifically designed to put up the work-in-progress into them for shifting/transfer; that from the nature and manner of the working, utilization, these pallets are part/accessories of the material handling equipment for sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of fork lifts. Finally, he submitted that benefit of Notification No. 67/95-CE is available as the impugned pallets are used with material handling equipment in the Respondent s factory for transportation of partly processed goods; that the Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E. v. Tata Engineering and Locomotives Co. Ltd. - 2003 (158) E.L.T. 130 (S.C.) = 2003 (59) RLT 237 (S.C.) has allowed input Modvat credit in respect of fork lift truck, trolleys and conveyors; that in the case of Lupin Laboratories Ltd. v. C.C.E. C, 1999 (107) E.L.T. 170 (T), the Tribunal has held that movable platform and aluminium pallets if used to transfer in process material from one production machinery to another machinery Modvat credit is admissible under R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t trucks as they are complete without these pallets. It has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. C.C.E., Pune, 1997 ((93) E.L.T. 475 (T) that a part is one without which the particular machinery was not operational or could not suitably discharge the function for which it has been designed . The Tribunal in the said decision has found that inserts were not parts of the excavator as the excavator was operational even without these inserts and they were meant only to improve the life of the teeth provided with the scoopers . In the present matter also the fork-lift truck is operational without pallets and as such pallets are not parts of the same. If the contention of the Respondent is accepted, motor sprit will be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
