2006 (1) TMI 434

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uired for running the diesel generating set being essential item for running the factory. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that these goods do not bring about any change in any substance for manufacture of the final product and they cannot be considered as integral part of plant, machinery etc. He, therefore, denied the credit. 2. In addition to that, the appellants had grievance against the decision of the Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 9-7-1996 in which it was held that the Modvat credit of Rs. 15,000/- availed by the appellants was done so without duplicate copy of the invoice. Hence credit was denied to them. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants states that modvat concept is benevolent concept and the main .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for generating set falling under clause (1) (c) cannot be held to be falling under clause (1)(b). In other words, he tries to suggest that there were no provisions to include such storage tanks which store diesel oil to be used for generating sets as the law existed at the material time. 6. I have examined the case records and heard both sides. I am of the view that the provisions of modvat legislation are basically meant for removing the adverse cascading effects of indirect taxation which is known for its being regressive. Acknowledging the fact that the law and procedures relating to modvat have undergone sea change paving way towards the evolution of a revenue-neutral system, still there exists ample scope for taking a broader views o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. 9. Relying on the same ratio, he contends that no integral connection exists between the steel storage tank meant for storing diesel and the manufacture of yarn in the subject case and hence Modvat credit is not admissible under Rule 57Q. 10. I have examined the case records and heard both sides. Acknowleding the goal behind modvat legislation and the fact that both the items in question have found their use inside the factory which fact has not been questioned, I do not find any reason to deny the modvat benefit for these items. As regards the remaining point i.e allegation that Modvat credit of Rs. 15,000/- has been availed on the transport copy stamped with rubber stamp which was not duplicate fo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X