9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n relation to the manufacture of the final products and (3) both the items claimed as input and the final product are notified under Modvat scheme. 3. It is not in dispute that both items are notified under the Modvat scheme. Assistant Collector also held that crucibles are in fact the input which satisfied the first condition. But he is of the view that it does not satisfy the second condition since it was not used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. The view taken by the Assistant Collector was upheld by the first Appellate Authority. Hence this appeal before us. 4. Shri M.P. Devnath submitted that the issue involved in this case has been covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Goetze Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of his contention. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. In the reply to the show cause notice, the party has mentioned that crucible is not an [appliance] and is an input essentially required for the manufacture of final product and is not coming as a part of the machinery or as an input for upkeeping and maintenance of the machinery. It was the contention of the party that the crucible is not in the nature of tool or equipment but it is a vessel used as a melting pot for the melting of the metal. In the process of melting the crucible gets consumed. In the case of Goetze India Ltd. also it was observed that it is in the form of utensil, may be of larger size but not in the form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the expression "in the manufacture of goods." Further in the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. STO, Kanpur and Others, the Supreme Court observed that the expression "in the manufacture" takes in within its compass all processes which are directly related to the actual production. In view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case referred to above and in view of the clear finding by the Assistant Commissioner that the item is an input and the factual position that item as such has been used in the process of manufacture has not been rebutted by the department, I agree with the plea taken by the appellants that item is an eligible input for Modvat credit. In the view, I allow the appeal with consequen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
