TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SDR for the Department, Shri Victor Thyagaraj, concedes that the issue is covered against the Revenue by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Meerut v. Modi Xerox Ltd., reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 530. 2. He has further pleaded that the learned lower authority has not entered any findings that the weighment of the raw materials was considered essential for the purpose of manufacture of the goods. 3. The learned Advolate for the respondents has pleaded that the need for weighment for the material was explained to the learned Collector (Appeals) and he has after taking note of the use of the weighing machine, as a first step towards the manufacture of the goods allowed the benefit of the Modvat credit. 4. I have considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e enlarged meaning of the capital goods as per the Explanation to Rule 57Q, it is clear that not only machinery which brings about change but also parts and accessories of machinery or appliances used for the purpose of manufacture of the final product [are capital goods] and accordingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) was right in holding that Rule 57Q is wide enough to cover the items in question. Since I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order on this issue, I accept the plea of the respondents and in view of the stand taken, the appeal filed by the department is hereby dismissed. Likewise another Member of the same Bench has held in the case of the very same assessee reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 214 as under : The other item in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Application is dismissed. 5. Therefore, following the ratio of the decision as above, and what has been held by the Hon ble Supreme Court, I hold that the Modvat credit in respect of the weighing machines has been rightly allowed. 6. In regard to the order of the learned lower authority under which he has allowed the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of goods which were not covered by an invoice which omitted to show the consignees name and address, the learned lower authority has held that the lapse were minor in nature and subject to the verification regarding the duty paid nature of the goods, the benefit of Modvat credit could be allowed. 7. The learned SDR for the Department, Shri Victor Thyagaraj, has pleaded that the Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t credit taken on the invoice which shows that the order was by the Thiruvottiyur Unit of the respondents and the consignee as the Hosur Unit. The learned lower authority has held that this discrepancy would not come in the way of the grant of the Modvat credit. The learned SDR for the Department fairly concedes that the appellants Headquarters is in Thiruvottiyur and the order was placed from there and the goods were required for their Hosur Unit where the goods were actually consigned. In such a situation, it is not understandable how the Department can take a plea that the invoice had not been properly made for the purpose of Modvat credit. In case of an organisation having more than one unit, the headquarters may organise the purchase a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
