TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 1354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue is aggrieved with the order-in-appeal No. 22/2000 (M-III) dated 21.1.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai upholding that Main Lighting DB, Sub-lighting DB and Sub-Lighting DB-I are capital goods as they perform function of power and distribution board and they are necessary for the purpose of manufacture of the final product in the assessee's company. The Commissioner has a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit. He has noted the judgment of CEGAT in the case of CC v. Jolly Exports Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 1986 and that of Ideal Engineering Works, v. State of Karnataka as reported in 1997 Kar LJ (Tri) 226 and found the same to satisfy the definition of the 'capital goods'. Revenue contend that the items have no role to play and cannot be considered as components, spares and accessories to an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apital goods and has also taken into consideration the case law. The matter was taken up by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the Jawahar Mills case and decided against revenue. The revenue took up the matter before the Apex Court and the Apex Court has upheld the Larger Bench's decision and held that cables are eligible for modvat credit. The Larger Bench have analysed the definition of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
