Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1999 (8) TMI 426

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ld. DR submits that in the grounds of appeal filed by the Department only three items as follows have been agitated : 1. Enamelled Winding Wire/Copper Winding Wire 2. Rotary Units, F.R.B. Sleeves, Shaft, Impeller 3. Cylindrical Vertical Tank He submits that Enamelled Winding Wire/Copper Winding Wire are parts of 'Electric Motor'. Electric motor is not a capital good for the purpose of Rule 57Q. He submits that Rotary Units, F.R.B. Sleeves, Shaft, Impeller are also not parts having a nexus to machinery, plant etc. used for production or processing or bringing about any change in the final product and thus he submits that the items are not covered by Rule 57Q. Ld. DR submits that Cylindrical Vertical Tanks ar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of these items used. Since they are parts of machinery, they are covered by Rule 57Q. About Cylindrical Vertical Tanks, ld. Counsel submits that these are storage tanks used for storing the inputs. He submits that these tanks are used in the process of manufacture of the final product. He submits that any machine or part used in the process of manufacture of the final product is capital goods. In support of his contention he cites and relies upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Dabur India Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 1998(98) E.L.T. 674 and in the case of SRF Ltd. reported in 1999 (106) E.L.T. 317. He submits that the decisions cited by ld. DR are easily distinguishable because in one case the steel tanks were used as ....