2003 (12) TMI 640

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hese were rejected on the ground that the above items are not covered under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 as these are for general purposes with multifarious uses. 2. Shri B. Seshagiri Rao, learned Consultant for the appellants pleaded that the claim of the appellants has been rejected in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Indo Rama Synthetics (1) Ltd. vs. CCE Nagpur reported in 1996 (14) RLT 869 (CEGAT-WRB)=1996 (86) ELT 277(T) and in the case of M/s. Malvika Steel Ltd. vs. CCE, Allahabad reported in 1998 (24) RLT 189 (CEGAT)=1998 (97) ELT 530 (T). It was pleaded that in both the cases, the Steel Structures were used for providing support to heavy machinery. These structures were not used as a part of civil ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....reported in 2000 (38) RLT 718 (CEGAT-LB)=RLT(L.B-CEGAT)-1696=2000 (119) ELT 197 and in the case of Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore reported in 2002 (48) RLT 61 (CEGAT-Ban.)=2002 (140) ELT 401 (T). 3. Heard Shri L. Narasimha Murthy, JDR for Revenue who pleaded that Modvat credit on Structures, angles and joists, etc. is not eligible in view of the Tribunal decision in the case of Usha Ispat Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune reported in 2000 (125) ELT 1184. He also relied upon the Tribunal decisions in the case of Malvika Steel Ltd. vs. CCE, Allahabad reported in 1998 (24) RLT 189 (CEGAT)=1998 (97) ELT 530 (T) and in the case of CCE, Noida vs. VSM Ltd. reported in 2003 (58) RLT 503. He, further, stated that the decision in the case of ....