TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (12) TMI 162
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aring for the appellants submitted that Modvat credit has been denied to the appellants on two grounds, namely :- (i) that the appellants had availed credit on invoice dated 1-8-1994 issued by a depot of the manufacturer who had not registered himself with the Central Excise department as required and as such the invoice could not be treated as valid documents for allowing Modvat credit; (ii) that two items, namely silicon cloth roll and stacker crane were not eligible to be considered as capital goods for purposes of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. As regards denial of Modvat credit on the ground that the invoices were issued by a depot which had not been registered, ld. Counsel contended that the requirement o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l had held that coated abrasive paper cannot be considered as a tool since its function was merely to smoothen or polish the plywood. Further, the Tribunal in Batliboi & Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E. [1998 (99) E.L.T. 108 (Tribunal) = 1998 (24) RLT 794] had held that consumable tools such as drilling bits and cutting blades were eligible inputs under Rule 57A though they were not capable by themselves of producing or processing any goods or bringing about any change in substance. Since silicon cloth performs an identical function in the manufacture of decorative laminated sheets as coated abrasive paper in the manufacture of plywood, there was no reason to disallow Modvat credit to the said item, according to the appellants. 4. As regards stac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said Notification before the stipulated date. The authorities below had therefore, correctly held that the said invoices could not be called valid documents for purpose of Modvat credit. On the question to allowing credit on silicon cloth and stacker crane he contended that the use of these items did not bring about any change in the manufacture of final product and therefore, did not come within the definition of the capital goods under Rule 57Q. The findings of the authorities below therefore, did not call for any interference according to the ld. JDR. 6. I have considered the submissions and have perused the case law. I find that Notification No. 64/94 and the Circular issued by the Board on 8-11-1994 clarifying the amendment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilar to the Bengal Safety Industries case (supra). Following the ratio of the said decision I hold that the availment of Modvat credit on invoice dated 1-8-1994 issued by M/s. Merino Ply and Chemicals Ltd. has to be allowed. 7. As regards availability of Modvat credit for silicon cloth, I find that the decision in National Radio Electronics v. C.C.E., (supra) had dealt with eligibility of Modvat credit on emery cloth under Rule 57A and not Rule 57Q although the aspect of consumable nature of the said item had been dealt with. This decision therefore does not help the appellants' claim for Modvat credit as Capital goods. As regards reliance placed on C.C.E., Jaipur v. J.K. Synthetics [1999 (107) E.L.T. 761], the said decision conside....