9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as raw materials for fabrication of various parts of the manufacturing plant, were not to be treated as parts of any machinery under Rule 57Q ibid. In relation to thermocouples, it was alleged that the said items, which were covered under Central Excise Tariff Heading 90.33, stood excluded from the category of modvatable capital goods. The allegations were denied by the appellants. The adjudicating authority disallowed the entire credit and imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the party. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of Modvat credit but vacated the penalty. In the present appeal, filed by the party challenging the denial of Modvat credit, the main ground is that the sheets and plates which were used for replacement of worn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of this Bench in CCE, Jaipur-II v. Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. [2002 (150) E.L.T. 674]. Ld. DR also claimed support from the decision of the Tribunal's Larger Bench in Jaypee Rewa Plant v. CCE, Raipur [2003 (159) E.L.T. 553 (Tri. - LB) = 2003 (88) ECC 503 (Tri-LB)]. 5. I have considered the submissions. The argument raised by ld. DR would have been crucial, in this case, had there been appropriate specific allegation in the show-cause notice. The argument is that the sheets and plates were falling under Headings of Chapter 72 of the CET Schedule and hence stood excluded from the category of eligible capital goods under Rule 57Q. I find that there is no allegation in the show-cause notice to support this argument. The only allegation raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the table ibid. Components and spares do not stand on their own. They must be components or spares of some machines. In the instant case, the identity of these machines has not been disclosed with reference to Tariff entries. In this context, the decision of the Tribunal in Simbhaoli Sugar Mills relied on by ld. Counsel is apposite. In that case, it was held that, for the purpose of deciding the eligibility of any item for capital goods credit under Rule 57Q, it had to be ascertained that the items which were claimed to be components/accessories of some machines were actually components/accessories. This decision has been upheld by the Supreme Court vide [2002 (139) E.L.T. A294]. Following this ratio, I hold that, for want of identity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
