TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (4) TMI 194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dvocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The captioned appeals have been filed by the department on the ground that luggage carrier is not an essential accessory and therefore Modvat credit was not available on this. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles. The Rule 123 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 reads....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and submitted that in terms of this requirement a safety device was an essential item. The learned Counsel referred to the larger Bench decision in the case of Lipi Data System reported in 1995 (80) E.L.T. 542 and submitted that in view of the ratio of the larger Bench judgment after taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Patna High Court and ot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....partment was that it was agreeable if it was an essential accessory but the department contested that it was an optional and not an essential one. The learned Counsel submitted that the goods described by them as luggage carrier was essential not only for the safety purpose but it was essential to be fitted in the vehicle before the vehicle is taken out. The learned Counsel submitted that foot mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctor. 5. Heard the submissions of both sides and perused the case law cited and relied upon. I find that larger Bench of the Tribunal had examined the issue as to what should be criterian for deciding whether an item is `used in' `in relation' to manufacture of final product. The test laid down by the Tribunal was that item must be essential for its functioning. Now subjecting the present ....