TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeared for the appellants and Shri Anil Kumar, the learned JDR, for the Revenue. 4. We have heard both the parties. The findings are as follows: (i) The total credit disallowed is to the tune of Rs. 4,64,88,243/- for the period from June 1996 to December 1996. It was pointed out that in respect of chemicals, viz. petrolite, absorbant, catalyst like phenolin, sodium hydroxide, isopropobnol, the Adjudicating Authority has denied credit on the ground that they are not capital goods. It is the contention of the learned Advocate that the amounts involved in respect of these items viz. 2,96,459/- (Petrolite) and Rs. 3,08,35,881/- (Absorbant catalyst) have already been reversed and this fact is admitted by the earlier 010 at pg. 264 as ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CCE, Indore - 2002 (147) E.L.T. 333 (Tri.-Del.) (c) Rajasthan Polymers Resins Ltd. v. CCE - 1999 (113) E.L.T. 18 (S.C.) (d) Startron Video Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 258 (Tribunal) (e) Bhoruka Textiles Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 583 (Tribunal) We agree with the appellant that the credit is not deniable simply for the reason of non-production of triplicate copy. As the original as well as the re-constructed copy have been submitted, the appellants are entitled for the above mentioned credit in view of the cited case-laws. (iv) In respect of Piping material, calibration kit, Aviation warning lamps, instruments, etc. credit to the tune of Rs. 44,16,458 + Rs. 1,56,799/- have been de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand on account of the above amounts already reversed is set aside. (vi) Credit to the tune of Rs. 3,21,785/- has been denied on the ground that the endorsed copy of GPI and invoices are not valid documents. It was contended that the materials were received prior to 1- 4-1994 and during that period endorsed GPI was a valid document. The following case-law was relied on: (a) Hybrid Electronic Systems P. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-I - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 526 (Tribunal) Moreover Rule 57T(3) allows credit availed on contracts. We agree with the appellants and hold that they are entitled for credit to the tune of Rs. 3,21,785/- availed on the basis of Endorsed copy of GPI and invoices. (vii) In respect of the following amounts, credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parting, we have noticed that the original authority has denied the credit on certain items on the ground that they are not used in the manufacture of final products. For example, credit has been denied on Piping material. We cannot think of a refinery without pipes. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the landmark decision in the case of CCE v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. (cited supra), has held that while interpreting Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 that the language used in the Rule is very liberal and held that 'capital Goods' can be machines, machinery, plant, equipment, tools or appliances. It has also been held that the goods enumerated in Clause (c) need not be used for producing the final product or used in the process of any goods for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
