9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in Jan. 1997 after filing the necessary declaration under Rule 57G of the aforesaid rules. The adjudicating authority disallowed the credit after holding a view that crucibles were not inputs but only capital goods under Rule 57Q. The decision of the adjudicating authority was upheld by the lower appellate authority. Hence the present appeal. 2. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Larger Bench in the case of Melton India Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut [2000 (121) E.L.T. 701 (Tri. - LB) = 2000 (40) RLT 973]. He submits that, in that case, the Bench held that the evaporation boat used in the manufacture of metallised polyester films was only an appliance and not eligible input under Rule 57A. Ld. DR has heavily relied on the decision of the Larger Bench in support of his praye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad also been noted by the adjudicating authority. That authority had noted that the appellants had claimed that the crucibles were consumables to be rightly treated as inputs under Rule 57-A and not equipments to be considered as capital goods under Rule 57Q. I find that both the authorities failed to appreciate the appellants, plea correctly. Their conclusion that the ceramic crucibles did not qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at credit under Rule 57A. The crucibles under reference are apparently quite different from the ceramic evaporation boats considered by the Larger Bench. In that case, there was no finding to the effect that the evaporation boats were used up in the process of manufacture of final products. It appears that, as per the use of the goods as explained by the assessee in that case the Bench held the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
