9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that the issue relates to Modvat credit. The Commissioner has disallowed the Modvat credit on Switch Boards falling under Tariff Heading No. 8537.00 availed by the applicants under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules on the ground that the item in question i.e. Switch Board is not covered in the definition of capital goods as provided under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. He drew our attention to the relevant finding portion of the Collector wherein it was observed that "Switch Board are used for distribution and control of electricity only and are mere accompaniments and not accessories of machine, machinery etc. and are not used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were part of panel board and panel board was the part of a completely automatic chemical plant (please see para 2 of that decision). In the light of these facts the switches of panel board of chemical plant which were used as spare parts were considered `capital goods' for the purpose of Rule 57Q. However, in the present case admittedly the impugned switch boards are used at the DG Set and Sub Station as a path for flow of power at a specified voltage and current and for switching and controlling of power flow in electrical circuit. It is stated by the noticee party themselves (para 5 above) that these two switch boards are for regularising the power distribution as required at power Station and for synchronising the power coming from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey took Modvat credit under the belief that the availment of Modvat credit in their case would not be hit by the restriction brought by this notification which came into effect from 16-3-1995. The show cause notice dated 13-9-1995 in the present case does not refer to Notification No. 11/95-C.E. (N.T.), dated 16-3-1995. Therefore, we are not concerned with the implication of these provisions. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak vide his communication dated 10-6-1996 while furnishing the comments on the submissions of the party has also stated that the argument regarding applicability of sub-clause 1(d) of the Explanation under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not correct as this clause was inserted only w.e.f. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
