Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether magnesite bricks used for lining a furnace used in the manufacture of the final product were eligible as inputs under Rule 57A(1), and whether they were excluded as items used in or in relation to the construction of a furnace.
Analysis: The bricks were used as lining of the furnace, which was essential for melting metal in the course of manufacture of ferro alloys. The exclusion under the explanation to Rule 57A(1) did not apply, because the cited Larger Bench decision held that parts of machinery do not fall within the exclusion clause. The use of the bricks was therefore connected with the manufacturing process and not with construction of the furnace in the disqualifying sense.
Conclusion: The magnesite bricks qualified as inputs and were not hit by the exclusion clause under Rule 57A(1); the appeal was rejected.