2005 (5) TMI 384

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ;Modvat credits totalling 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 se .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t stood prior to the amendment 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Ltd. v. CCE 5. We agree with the contentions raised by the ld. Advocate for the respondents and 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 Con .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... JDR, there was nothing in Notification 25/96-C.E. (N.T.) to indicate that the amendments proposed therein were 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 ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 73.25, the appellants do not seem to have a case that this tariff entry was specified under Rule 57Q for Modvat benefit during the period of dispute. 5. In the result, none of the capital goods in question can be held to be eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q for the period of dispute. Appeal is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X