TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the present appeal, I have heard Shri A. K. Chattopadhyay, learned JDR, for the Revenue and Shri P.C. Das, learned Consultant for the respondent company. 2. A very short point is involved in the present appeal. The original adjudicating authority had disallowed the Modvat credit to the respondents in respect of "Loadall" received by them from M/s. Escorts JCB Ltd. The respondents had claimed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question would also be admissible modvatable capital goods. 3. I find that admittedly "Loadalls" have been classified by the Central Excise Officers having jurisdiction over the manufacturer's factory as falling under heading 84.29. There is also no dispute that Rule 57Q excluded the items falling under heading 84.29 from the definition of capital goods. In these circumstances, it is not unders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te in as much as in all those cases, the issue before the Tribunal was that whether the Modvat credit can be legally denied to the assessee when the description of the goods, as described by him in their Rule 57G declaration and as given in the invoices, is identical, but there is some change in the classification of the product, as given in the declaration and as given in the invoices. Admittedly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is, I find that the Commissioner has clearly over-stepped her jurisdiction. 4. Inasmuch as the goods in question have admittedly discharged duty-burden under heading 84.29 and the said heading is not covered by the definition of capital goods, I find that the impugned Order by Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable. Accordingly, I allow the Revenue's appeal. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
