TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (8) TMI 238
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... nozzles, have to be considered eligible for Modvat credit as they are not machinery, tool etc. As regards skull scrap, the Dy. Collector has clearly erred in saying that the invoices/delivery challans of the Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. stockyard, Burnpur have not been recognized to be the valid document for the purpose of taking credit. As contended by the appellant, the invoices of the integrated steel plant are acceptable as GP-1 as per Board's letter No. 1/73/70-CX. 6 dated 12-4-1971 under Rule 52A. It is further seen that the combined despatch advices and challan and bills carry a certificate on the reverse that central excise duty has been paid on the goods covered by the invoice. The relevant computerised challans here are found t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... should not be disallowed and why the same should not be recovered under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules. 3. The respondents herein in reply to the show cause notice relied upon the proviso 2 of the Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and submitted that they had applied for L-4 licence for manufacture of iron and non-alloy steel billets/ingots and stainless steel billets/ingots : that they filed a declaration under Rule 57G: that they received inputs on 26-12-1990 and that they had correctly availed Modvat credit. After considering all the facts, the Dy. Collector disallowed the Modvat credit and asked the respondents to pay the same under Rule 57-I on the ground that lancing pipe and foundry fluxes nozzles are used for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zzle is for free flowing of liquid metal from the ladle through the nozzle and thus it was also a part of machinery on which credit is not available, that in the case of Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 252 and Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 649 this Tribunal denied Modvat credit on wire netting, dandy covers and woollen felts holding that the items are essential part of paper-making machinery whose main use is to keep the machinery functional. The ld. DR submitted that the use of lancing pipe and foundry fluxes nozzles are identical to those discussed in the case of Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills and Sirpur Paper Mills. The ld. DR, therefore, submitted that the ratio of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal filed. I presume that the application for a licence was filed before 26-12-1990. In terms of proviso 2 to Rule 174(3), the respondent was entitled to take credit on 26-12-1990 and I hold accordingly. 8. On the second issue, I find that the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court had gone into this question in extensio. For the sake of convenience paras 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 are reproduced : Furthermore if there were any doubt, I hold that appliance "20. must be read ejusdem generis with the preceding words. The words preceding constitute a specific category or a distinct genus and if there were any doubt, as to the meaning of the word of appliance, which in my view there is no, the same must be construed with reference to that genu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e all classified under Headings and Sections which are totally different from the Headings and Sections under which the items are classified. 22. The Tribunal has erred in seeking to limit the meaning of the word `inputs' to those items which go into the steel ingot completely overlooking the phrase `in relation to' in the definition in the major clause of the explanation. 23. The respondents then argued that steel ingots could be manufactured even without the items. That may be so, but that is immaterial. The definition of inputs is not dependent upon what ought to be used but what is in fact used. There is no dispute that the petitioner No. 1 had in fact, used and uses the items in the manufacturing of ingots. The Supreme ....