9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Rule 57Q were inserted for the first time by Notification No. 11/1995-C.E. (N.T.), dated 16-3-1995 and being so, the same cannot be applied to this case - appeal is restored to its original number. The ROM is allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lifting Chain. In the appeal before the Tribunal, it had been pleaded that all these items including those specifically brought within the purview of the capital goods by Notification No. 11/1995-C.E. (N.T.), dated 16-3-1995 were covered by the definition of 'capital goods' during the period of dispute in view of Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Indore v. Surya Roshni Ltd. reported in 2001 (128) E.L.T. 293 (Tri.-LB). As regards the items used for repair and maintenance of the plant and machinery it was pleaded that the capital goods Modvat credit was admissible in view of judgment of Apex Court in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). The appeal was decided by thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substance for manufacture of final product or the components, spare parts or accessories of such machineries, plants, equipments or apparatus and, hence, these items were covered by Clauses (a) & (b) of the definition of capital goods, as it stood during the period prior to 16-3-1995, that just because the Chapter Headings covering these items were specifically mentioned in Clauses (d) & (e), added to the definition of capital goods by Notification No. 11/1995-C.E. (N.T.), dated 16-3-1995, it cannot be inferred that these items were not covered by the definition of capital goods during the period prior to 16-3-1995, that in this regard he relies upon the Larger Bench judgment in the case of CCE, Indore v. Surya Roshni Ltd. (supra), that thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1995, would be eligible for capital goods Modvat credit even during period prior to 16-3-1995. On going through the records, we find that such a plea had, indeed, been made, but the Modvat credit in respect of the above-mentioned items was disallowed on the ground that Clauses (d) & (e) to Rule 57Q were inserted for the first time by Notification No. 11/1995-C.E. (N.T.), dated 16-3-1995 and being so, the same cannot be applied to this case. There is, thus, a mistake apparent from mistake in not considering the appellant's plea regarding the ratio of Larger Bench judgment in the case of CCE, Indore v. Surya Roshni Ltd. (supra). The Final Order No. 217/2010-EX, dated 30-4-2010 is, therefore, recalled and the appeal is restored to its original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
