2006 (10) TMI 246

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the Respondent. [Order]. The prayer in the application is to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 1,85,273/- (Rupees one lakh eighty five thousand two hundred seventy three only) confirmed by denying the modvat credit in respect of Conveyor Belt as of capital goods. 2. After hearing both the side, I find that the credit was originally allowed by the adj .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ctory to the appellant s factory and as such is entitled to be considered as modvatable capital goods. He also submits that the said decision of the Larger Bench was subsequently considered by the Tribunal in the case of Diamond Cement v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal [2005 (191) E.L.T. 702 (Tri.-Del.)] and in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. [2001 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iable capital goods for the purposes of modvat credit. 5. Apart from the above, it is seen that the credit was availed in the year 1998 whereas the show cause notice was issued in November 2003. The Deputy Commissioner has given a categorical finding that the appellants have been filing regular RT 12 returns and cannot be charged for suppression of facts. The said finding of the original adjudic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X