9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Rohtak allowing Modvat credit of Rs. 86,453/- as per provisions of Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 to M/s. Laxmi Precision Screws Ltd. Hissar Road, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent are engaged in manufacture of Nuts, Bolts and Screws etc. falling under Chapter 73 87 of 1st Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are availing the facilities of Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs/raw materials and capital goods under the provisions of Rules 57A and 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The scrutiny of their Central Excise statutory records revealed that during the period June, 1995 to August 1995, they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the definition of capital goods in Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. In this regard, the reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon ble CEGAT in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. Shanmugaraja Spinning Mills (P) Ltd.; (ii) That goods of Chapter Heading 84.71 of 1st Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 have been specifically excluded from the preview of grant of Modvat credit as capital goods under Rule 57Q. 4. A notice under Section 35E(4) read with Section 35B(4) of Central Excise Act, 1944 was sent on 29-1-2004 to the Respondent for filing a memorandum of cross-objections. In response of which the respondent filed the same on 9-2-2004 on the following grounds : (a) The Respondent is engaged in manufacture of sophi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eligible for Modvat credit as capital goods. Hence, the learned Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Rohtak have rightly allowed the Modvat credit considering the factual position and the use of the goods in or in relation to manufacture of resultant/final product; (d) In support of the grounds of cross-objections, the Respondent relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon ble CEGAT in the case of MEC Shot Blasting Equipment (P) Ltd. v. CCE vide Final Order No. A/574/98-NB dated 4-6-1998. 5. Personal hearing in the matter was fixed for 27-10-2004. None has appeared on behalf of the Revenue. However, Sh. K.K. Jangra Dy. Manager (Excise) appeared on behalf of the Respondent and reiterated the grounds of cross-objections and fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
