9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 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. There is no representation for the appellants today. How ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 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 prayer for holding the crucibles not to be inputs under Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat 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 qualify as inputs under Rule 57A does not appear to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence 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 goods to be appliances. Therefore, the reliance place ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
