TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the gear box under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. 2. Shri A.M. Tilak, JDR, made the following submissions : 1. Gear Box was not a generating set; 2. Prior to 16-3-1995 the components of the electric generating sets were not covered by the scheme of credit of duty paid on capital goods used by the manufacturer of specified goods under Rule 57Q of the Rules; and 3. The Gear Box in question was received in the factory before 16-3-1995 and by virtue of the specific provision made in Notification No. 11/95-C.E. (N.T.), dated 16-3-1995, no such credit was admissible if the goods had been received in the factory before 16-3-1995. 3. In reply, Shri Alok Arora, Advocate, referred to the Tribunal s decision in the case of J.K. Sy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ducing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final products; (b) components, spare parts/and accessories of the aforesaid machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances used for aforesaid purpose; and (c) moulds and dies, generating sets and weigh-bridges used in the factory of the manufacturer. The expression used in the definition is means. When the expression used is means , then it is specific and categorical and the scope could not be extended beyond the scope of the definition. It has been provided that only generating sets were covered by the scope of the scheme. I find that the parts of the generating sets were not so covered. With regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit of duty was allowable under any other rule or notification prior to the 16th day of March, 1995) shall be allowed if such capital goods were received in the facotory before the 16th day of March, 1995. I find that gear box was not a capital goods for the purposes of Rule 57Q of the Rules prior to 16-3-1995. As such no credit of the duty was allowable in respect of the gear box prior to 16-3-1995. There is no dispute that the goods in question were received in the factory in September, 1994 and the show cause notice had also been issued much before the amending Notification No. 11/95-C.E. (N.T.), dated 16-3-1995. 9. The learned Advocate had referred to the Tribunal s decision in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd., supra. The learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
