TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to Rs. 5,20,611/- were denied to the appellants in respect of a large number of capital goods which were installed in their factory during the period 23-7-1996 to 31-8-1996. The credits were taken in 3/98. As, in the relevant show cause notice, time-bar was not raised as a ground for denying credit, no limitation issue is involved in this case. The short question to be settled is whether the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mendment and consequently the benefit of capital goods credit will not be available to the above goods falling under Heading 84.74 for the aforesaid period. 2. The learned Consultant for the appellants submits that Notification 25/96-C.E. (N.T.) was clarificatory and hence retrospective. In this connection, he relies on the Tribunal s judgment in the case of CCE, Patna v. Bihar Caustic Chemica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd hold that the tubes, pipes and fittings used for conveying of liquids were covered by the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q even prior to its amendment and were entitled to Modvat credit. As such no merit is being found in the Revenue s appeal in respect of these items . The learned Consultant has also brought on record a copy of the Tribunal s decision in the case of J.K. Synthetics ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere meant to be retroactive. One of the results of the amendment was that Heading 84.74 occurring in the exclusionary part of clause (i) of Explanation to Rule 57Q(1) got deleted. The legislative intent was very clear and the same was to take out Heading 84.74 from the excluded category of capital goods and include it in the category of capital goods specified for Modvat credit. The amendment is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
