9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terials handling system. It is not necessary to describe here the function of each of the systems. Suffice to say that these supporting structures are also capital goods and the fact that they are embedded to the earth is not a sound reason for denying the Modvat credit on the inputs used. In the case of Mahalakshmi Glass Works Ltd. v. CCE,[ 1997 (5) TMI 286 - CEGAT, MUMBAI] , it was held that there is no requirement in Rule 57Q that for credit to be taken on part of the capital goods, the capital goods themselves must be liable to duty. Hence the Commissioner (Appeals) s reasoning that out of all the inputs the assessee manufactured non-excisable goods which are embedded to earth and hence no Modvat credit can be given, is not correct. Thu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e HR Plates, Sheets, etc. used for structurals are not entitled for Modvat credit. According to the Commissioner (Appeals), the use of HR Plates, Sheets, etc. in the manufacture of structural does not result in the manufacture of capital goods under Rule 57Q. The technological structure cannot be considered as goods. Hence no input credit can be given in the materials used for erecting technological structure. This is the argument of the Commissioner (Appeals). However, he held that when identifiable parts of the capital goods have come into existence/manufactured with the use of plates, sheets, etc., credit should be given. To ascertain the factual position, he ordered that the Jurisdictional Commissioner should examine each of the item in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion and to prevent them falling under the Capital goods. As per Rule 57D, the assessee are eligible for credit of duty on inputs used in the manufacture and fabrication of capital goods, even though they are exempted under Notification No. 67/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995. The following case laws were relied on - (i) Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 241 (T) (ii) Empire Inds. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-II - 2002 (144) E.L.T. 441 (T) = 2002 (51) RLT 113 (T) In the course of the personal hearing, the learned Advocate showed us the photographs of different parts of blast furnace and also the raw materials handling equipment wherein the use in the inputs to manufacture the supporting structures. 6.Ld. SDR urged that the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
