1999 (9) TMI 212

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Advocate, for the Respondents. [Order]. -  This Revenue Appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) by which spares for Hoist were held to be capital goods in terms of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Commissioner had followed the judgment of the Tribunal in C.C.E., Meerut v. Nova Udyog and C.C.E. v. R.K. Marbles & Others holding that 'Cranes' a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... v. C.C.E., Jaipur, has not been accepted by the Department and the Reference Application has been filed in the said case. Further, by the Circular issued by the Board on 5-7-1994, it has been clarified that credit on material handling equipment was not admissible. Hoist is a material handling equipment and credit is therefore not admissible either for Hoists or for spares of Hoists. Reliance was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) insofar as it related to spares for the 2 Tons Hoist. 3. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents has submitted that Hoists come within the category of material handling equipment and the Tribunal has in various decisions given earlier held that material handling equipment such as EOT Cranes, Fork Lift, Conveyor Belt, etc. have been held to be ....