2006 (6) TMI 328

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Respondent. [Order]. -  Heard both sides. 2. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Modvat credit on capital goods in respect of M.S. Fabricated Syrup Tank was denied on the ground that it is storage tank classifiable under Heading 7309.00 which is not specified goods under the definition of capital goo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arh v. Gontermann Peipers (India) Ltd., reported in 2005 (186) E.L.T. 422. 4. The contention is also that the goods in question are not storage tanks. These are syrup tanks used in the manufacture of sugar. The tanks in question are part of sugar clarification system. These tanks are used for chemical mixing and transferring the treated syrup. As these are parts of the sugar clarification sy .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ich the goods were cleared. The Tribunal in case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Gontermann Peipers (India) Ltd. (Supra) held that classifications of the capital goods are not to be changed at the recipient's hands. Further, I find that these are not simple storage tanks. These tanks are used for mainly for chemical mixing and syrup is treated in the tanks and thereafter supplied to the sugar clarification .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X