TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... head)/PTFE Bellows/PTFE Gasket/Hose assembly were used as pipe fittings and pipe fittings were used for transferring the liquid, air etc. The Commissioner had held that these items are not used for processing of goods nor do they bring any change in the substances. In this view of the matter he had held that they cannot be considered capital goods in terms of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, during the material period. As regards the second group of items viz. cable gland/plug spare/electrical cable/copper cable, the Commissioner had found that the said items were in the nature of parts of electrical fittings. Since electrical fittings are meant for transmission of electric current, the said items could be used not only for trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision in C.C.E. v. Hotline Glass Ltd. reported in 1999 (33) RLT 530 (CEGAT), and submits that the ratio clearly applied to the facts of the instant appeal. 3. As regards the second item viz. Cables, ld. Counsel submits that the said item is also clearly covered by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. C.C.E., Coimbatore reported in [1999 (108) E.L.T. 47 (T) = l999 (32) RLT 379 (T)]. In paragraph 40 thereof among the items mentioned as qualifying to be capital goods under Rule 57Q, Cables, Welding Electrodes etc. had been included on the basis of earlier decisions of the Tribunal. He, therefore, submits that cables are fully covered by the earlier decisions of the Tribunal and the matter is settled in the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pipes only when it was shown that they were used specifically for processing of goods or bringing out changes in the substance. As regards Dehumidifiers, ld. JDR submitted that Dehumidifiers would come under Tariff Heading 84.15. Chapter Heading 84.15 did not figure among the items eligible to be considered as capital goods either under Notification dated 16-3-1995 nor under amended notification dated 23-7-1996. He, therefore, submits that the Commissioner has rightly denied Modvat credit on Dehumidifiers. 7. Ld. Counsel had in rejoinder clarified that Dehumidifiers had been classified under Tariff Item 84.79.10 even in terms of Sl. No. 29 in the Annexure A to the Show Cause Notice. He also further relies on the Tribunal decision in DCL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xistence apart from the pipes themselves, I am not persuaded to accept the contention of the Department that the pipe fittings should be shown independently to have used for processing of goods, etc. 10. As regards Cable Gland/Plug Spare/Electrical Cable/Copper wire, for which credit had been held inadmissible, I find that paragraphs 4, 5 and 40 of the Larger Bench decision in Jawahar Mills Ltd. (supra) clearly holds that Cables will be eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. 11. As regards Dehumidifiers also, the Larger Bench decision in Jawahar Mills at paragraph 24 has, relying on the Gujarat High Court decision (Sl. 14) in 1965 (16) STC 308 held that humidifiers used to control humidity in the atmosphere so as to maintain certain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
