TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions for the credit were satisfied. The appellants are eligible for the benefit of the above amendments as well as the decision of the Larger Bench. In respect of item No. 6, credit was disallowed on the further ground that the words duplicate for transporter were not mentioned in the relevant invoices. There are decisions of the Tribunal against such denial of credit. In the result Modvat credit is held to be admissible to the appellants in respect of the capital goods mentioned at Sl. Nos. 2 to 6, 11 to 15 and 29. Capital goods mentioned at Sl. Nos. 32 to 43 are concerned, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the decision of the lower authorities. The assessee has claimed the benefit of the entry at Sl. No. 5 of the table anne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 34. Rotor Cp. 13184.00 -do- 35. Classifier housing 39576.00 -do- 36. Classifier lubrication line 480.00 -do- 37. Scatter ring 6080.00 -do- 38. Classifier heating group 2720.00 -do- 39. Roto Cp. 56096.00 -do- 40. Flap position 610.00 -do- 41. Classifier housing 36357.00 -do- 42. Flap position 2367.00 -do- 43. Classifier housing 67427.00 -do- 2. Ld. Consultant submits that the capital goods credit on the items mentioned at Sl. Nos. 2 to 6, 11 to 15 and 29 were not liable to be disallowed on the ground of non-filing of declaration in view of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut [2000 (121) E.L.T. 247 (Tri.-LB)]. With regard to the item mentioned at Sl. No. 6, ld. Consultant further po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efit of the above amendments as well as the decision of the Larger Bench. In respect of item No. 6, credit was disallowed on the further ground that the words "duplicate for transporter" were not mentioned in the relevant invoices. There are decisions of the Tribunal against such denial of credit. In the result Modvat credit is held to be admissible to the appellants in respect of the capital goods mentioned at Sl. Nos. 2 to 6, 11 to 15 and 29. 4. Insofar as the capital goods mentioned at Sl. Nos. 32 to 43 are concerned, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the decision of the lower authorities. The assessee has claimed the benefit of the entry at Sl. No. 5 of the table annexed to 57Q(1) in respect of these goods. According to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
