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

..... ant, for the Respondent. [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 clear .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... respect of the above items. The Original authority rejected this claim, but the 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 Industri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es were used in the process of manufacture of final product, in which event they cannot be treated as capital goods. But then, 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X