2005 (10) TMI 357

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J) (Oral)]. - The lower appellate authority denied capital goods credit to the respondents in respect of the following items : (a) Mortar (b) Grinding Additives (c) Isolator Switch Unit. Hence the present appeal of the Revenue. The period of dispute is not clearly discernible from the records. However, it is noticed that the relevant Mod .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he first appellate authority allowed the claim. 2. Learned SDR reiterates the grounds of appeal. Learned Consultant for the respondents relied on the Board s Circular No. 276/110/96-TRU, dated 2-12-1996 as also the following decisions of the Tribunal : (1) CCE, Chandigarh v. Bhusan Industries Ltd. reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 129. (1) CCE, Chennai v. Chettinad Cement Corporation Lt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... en, this item definitely qualifies to be input attracting Rule 57A. In this case, it appears, the assesse did not claim input duty credit on this item at any stage. Nevertheless, they cannot be denied this benefit inasmuch as it has been held by the Larger Bench in the case of CCE v. Modi Rubber Ltd. reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 197 (Tribunal - LB) that, where capital goods credit was not admissi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X