1999 (9) TMI 301

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....53), Jute Cuddies (Ch. 63) & Synthetic Cloth (Fabric) (Ch. 53) were not specified input in terms of Notification No. 177/86, dated 1-3-1986 as amended, issued Rule 57A. Therefore, notwithstanding the Hon'ble CEGAT's findings that (1) Gunny Cuttings are raw materials for manufacturing paper as contented by the appellant and (2) Gunny and Hessian Cloth are packing material, those are not eligible for availing Modvat credit, they not being specified goods.  (b)  Further, the Hon'ble CEGAT has held that 'Synthetic cloth' cannot be considered to be hit by the exclusion clause of explanation to Rule 57A, which does not negate the fact of its being an unspecified input in terms of the Notification No. 177/86, dated 1-3-1986 as amended....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on Carbide of India v. C.C.E., Calcutta-I as reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613.  (b)  This (Union Carbide) order of the Tribunal has also encompassed a number of manufacturer of paper and inter alia allowed the credit on the following inputs "Dryer Felt, Bronze/Metal Cloth, Cotton felt, Woolen felt, Synthetic felt, endless wire cloth/mesh, Dandy cloth and wire mesh", which are relevant to the present case also. However, the impugned order of Hon'ble CEGAT has in its judgment while placing reliance on the above held totally different inputs, as detailed in Para (a), to be eligible for availing Modvat Credit, without refuting the findings of original and the first appeal authority. (V) It was held by the Original authority of A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inery. A list of items not covered by the Union Carbide decision is enclosed as Annexure-B. Hence the Hon'ble CEGAT's decision allowing the credit on all such items without assigning any findings is not proper. 2.  We have heard both sides. We are dealing with the question No. I that certain inputs are not mentioned in Notification No. 177/86. This question is fit for rectification of mistake rather than the question of law. Such point was not raised before the Tribunal, therefore, this question does not out of the Tribunal's order. Question No. I(b). This question also points out that the inputs is not covered by Notification No. 177/86, dated 1-3-1986. This position was not pointed out at the time of hearing of the appeal,....