9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.00 -do- 6. Ceramic Fibre products 2569.00 Declaration not filed and "duplicate for transporter" not mentioned in the invoice furnished for defacing. 11. Strainer spro 290.00 Declaration not filed 12. Assembly of packing 239.00 -do- 13. Assembly of packing 239.00 -do- 14. Packing box 94.00 -do- 15. Cross lead pin 534.00 -do- 29. 6Q D/S Assly. 1839.00 -do- 32. Aux flap position 320.00 Ineligible capital goods. 33. Flap position 5823.00 -do- 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- 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15 and 29 is that any declaration had not been filed for these items under Rule 57T. In the case of Kamiakhya Steels (supra), the Larger Bench took note of the amendments brought to Rules 57G and 57T by Notification No. 7/99-C.E. (N.T.) as also the Board's clarification of the amendments and held to the effect that Modvat credit was not deniable on the sole ground of non-filing or belated filing of Modvat declaration where the substantive conditions 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 inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in question are claimed to be accessories. Even in the present appeal, they have not made any attempt at this. In the circumstances, it is held that they are not eligible for capital goods credit in respect of the items mentioned at Sl. Nos. 32 to 43 of the annexure to the show cause notice. 5. The lower appellate authority also denied Modvat credit to the appellants on the capital goods used in off-factory mines. This grievance, however, has not been pressed by ld. Consultant in view of the Supreme Court's judgment in Jaypee Rewa Cement v. CCE [2001 (133) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]. The penalty of Rs. 1000/- imposed on the appellants by the lower authorities is vacated in the circumstances of this case. 6. In the result, it is held that capital go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
