TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal was correct in law in rejecting the applicant's claim for investment allowance in relation to the plant and machinery used by the applicant for manufacturing its finished product on the ground that the items manufactured by it fell under item No. 27 of the said Eleventh Schedule ?" The assessee-company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of rubber stoppers. It claimed investment allowance of Rs. 3,06,870 for the assessment year 1978-79 and similar amount for the assessment year 1979-80. This was with reference to new machinery items installed by the assessee and used in the business for the accounting year ending December 31, 1977, and December 31, 1978, respectively. The cost of the machinery was Rs. 12,27,479. The assessee-co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s court for opinion. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The short point which arises for determination in the present case is whether the rubber stoppers used to cover glass bottles fall under items Nos. 27 and 28 of the Eleventh Schedule to the Act. It was urged on behalf of the Department that what the assessee manufactures can be equated with the cork as the function of cap. It was contended that the function of cork is to seal the bottle airtight and watertight. It was further contended that the assessee has admitted that the rubber caps manufactured by it perform the above functions. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the crown cork is generally used to cover bottles containing beverages. Learned c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see that the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit of investment allowance as the subject product did not fall under entry No. 27 and entry No. 28 of the Eleventh Schedule to the Act. Learned counsel for the assessee also invited our attention to similar entries under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Our attention was invited to items Nos. 41 and 42 of the Central Excise Tariff of India (1979) which are identical with entries Nos. 27 and 28 of the Eleventh Schedule to the Act. In this connection, learned counsel for the assessee relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Captocaps Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [1986] 24 ELT 19. We find merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
