2011 (9) TMI 861

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sides. 2. The lower appellate authority has rejected the claim of the appellants for input duty credit in respect of 'steel doors' used by the appellants for the premises where medicines are kept. In the appeal before the Tribunal, the appellants are claiming that steel doors are prescribed to be used under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act prohibiting use of wooden doors. Accordingly, they are claimin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n rejecting the claim of the appellants on the ground that the steel doors cannot be considered as an input for medicines, when such doors are used in the store rooms where medicines are stored and have no role in the manufacturing process. I also find that the claim before the Tribunal that steel doors should be considered as a Pollution Control Device is not at all sound. Firstly, the Pollution .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... teel doors, a pollution control equipment, which has a different connotation. Hence, I am of the opinion that the appellants have not made out a case for availing credit on steel doors either as inputs or as capital goods. I also find that the lower appellate authority has already granted some relief to the appellants by waiving the penalty imposed on them. Hence no other order is required to be p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X