1998 (10) TMI 193

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....00. 2.  The appellants intended to manufacture sugar. Towards this purpose they purchased a number of machines and accessories etc. During December, 1994 on such machinery etc. acquired by them Modvat credit under Rule 57Q amounting to Rs. 35,44,546.59 was taken. A show cause notice was issued on 1-6-1995 in which the following allegations were made : 1. Some of the materials received did not qualify under Rule 57Q nor was it used for specified purposes. 2. Materials for handling baggasse was not eligible inasmuch as baggasse did not attract any duty. 3. Some of the goods were used in erection/fittings/manufacture of the capital goods without following the provisions of Rule 57(a)(4). In manufacturing the capital goods the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder of the adjudicating authority is upheld." 5.  Shri J.S. Sharma, Vice President (Commercial) referred to the invoice covering those capital goods on which the claim of Modvat credit stood denied in the Commissioner's order. He showed that where the invoice described the goods as "angle valve", the Commissioner had taken them to be "angles". He stated that parts of the articles namely stabiliser, base frames, head stock are specifically manufactured component parts of the plant and machinery as per the drawing given by them. As regards the tubes he stated that they were meant for carriage of sugar cane juice. Certain invoices clearly showed parts of centrifugal machinery. It was his plea that all these machines/component parts ar....