TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2006 - - - Dated:- 6-12-2013 - Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman and Mr. T.S. Sivagnanam, JJ. ORDER The only question of law raised in this appeal preferred by the Revenue is, as to Whether the CESTAT is right in allowing modvat credit of duty paid on capital goods namely Draw frame producing final products namely Sliver/combed/carded cotton falling under Ch. 5202 are eligible capital g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eparatory machine viz., draw frame, which was directly used in the manufacturing of intermediate product viz., sliver between carding and simplex machines to cotton yarn viz., cotton carded or combed sliver; that the goods cotton carded/combed had remained specifically excluded in the list of eligible products appended to Rule 57Q. Aggrieved by the assessment, the assessee preferred appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g .its earlier decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Thiruchirapalli and Coimbatore v. M/s. Sundarshanam Spinning Mills Ltd. and others by Final Order Nos. 919-927 of 2003, dated 4-11-2003. The Tribunal passed the said Order specifically covering the case like that, of the petitioner-assessee on the intermediate products, products, which were manufactured by using Cotton yarn. The Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E.L.T. 497], to which one of us (T. Sivagnanam, J.) is a party, wherein after referring to the decisions of the Delhi High Court in Modi Carpets Ltd. v. Union of India, (1997) 91 E.L.T. 285 and the Supreme Court in Bhor Industries Ltd. v. Collector, 1989 (40) E.L.T. 280 (S.C.), ultimately held that the assessee would be entitled to Modvat credit of duty paid on capital goods/spares, namely, cardi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. [2009 (241) E.L.T. 497], which was relied on by the Tribunal was also subject matter of decision before this Court in the decision as reported in 2010 (250) E.L.T. 413, wherein this Court rejected the Revenue s case on similar question raised. Following the decision of the Court referred to above, there is no hesitation in rejecting the Revenue s appeal, thereby confirm th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
