1999 (7) TMI 207

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....apter 25. After the Modvat credit was introduced, the appellant filed declaration in terms of Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rules and claimed such credit of the duty paid on capital goods used for production or process of the final product. A show cause notice dated 27-9-1996 was issued denying Modvat credit on goods in respect of structures and parts of fire extinguishers and parts of programmable logic control (page 15). On 22-10-1996 a reply to show cause notice was given by the assessee/appellant. By Order-in-Original No. 131/91, the Asstt. Commissioner rejected the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,68,133/- consisting of Rs. 1,33,951/- relating to structure and parts, Rs. 26,982/- on parts of programmable logic controller and Rs. 7,200....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the fire extinguishers are concerned he also stated that the observations in the said case will hold good. 4. Shri Arunachalam, vehemently argues that the assessee has treated it as "structure". In fact he invited my attention to the reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 22-10-1996 (page 16 of the paper book) the assessee has treated the cable tray as a structure and he states therefore, that the issue is covered by the judgment of the Tribunal in Malvika Steel Ltd. v. C.C.E., Allahabad - 1998 (97) E.L.T. 530. He has especially cited in the Tribunal's judgment in paras 5 & 6 thereof. 5. I have considered very interesting arguments made by both parties. If we look into the case the point to be noted is reflected in the reply t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....larger Bench decision in Jawahar Mills Ltd. and the Malvika Steel Ltd. both deal with liability of the Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. But in the Larger Bench decision the Tribunal decided the case in favour of the assessees in respect of wires & cables. The larger bench decision has been delivered and referred by the Tribunal in later point of time but yet the said judgement does not refer to the Malvika Steel Ltd. probably because the question involved in that Jawahar Mills case is entirely different from the question decided in Malvika Steel Ltd. For the sake of repetition I find that the Malvika Steel Ltd. case decided cement and structure. Here the assessee themselves have treated the cable trays as structures, in his reply to the show c....