9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance was placed on the decision of this Bench in the case of India Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of CE, Hyderabad-III [ 2004 (11) TMI 155 - CESTAT, BANGALORE ] wherein credit was allowed in the case of bulldozer - appeal allowed. - S/Shri T.K. Jayaraman, M.V. Ravindran, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri G.P. Sastry, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri V.R. Gyaneshwar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in terms of Rule 2(b) which is reproduced below : capital goods means - i. All goods falling under Chapter 82, Chapter 84, Chapter 85, Chapter 90, heading No. 68.02 and sub-heading No. 6801.10 of the First Schedule to the Tariff Act; ii. Pollution control equipment; iii. Components, spares and accessories of the goods specified at (i) and (ii) above; iv. Moulds and dies; v. Refractories and refra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in our view is not legal and proper. Moreover, the issue is also clarified in Board s circular No. 276/110/96-TRU dated 2-12-2006. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of this Bench in the case of India Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of CE, Hyderabad-III reported in 2005 (180) E.L.T. 247 (Tri.-Bang.) wherein credit was allowed in the case of bulldozer. Present case is analogous to the Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
