TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (9) TMI 353
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, for the Respondents. [Order]. - In the impugned Order, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that the issue involved i.e. Fork Lift Crane is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. J.K. Synthetics Limited v. C.C.E., Jaipur [1996 (88) E.L.T. 785 (T) = 1996 (17) RLT 98] and in the case of M/s. M.M. Forgings Ltd. v. C.C.E., Tiruchirapalli [1997 (89) E.L.T. 617 (T) = 1996 (15) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for bringing out any change in any substance for manufacture of the final products. It was also alleged that Fork Lift Trucks/Cranes is not machine, plant or equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances which is used for manufacture of the final product or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of the final product, as such does not come within the expression of capital go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authorities, they are not the items covered by the Explanation of Rule 57Q. He submits that since a Reference has already been allowed by the Tribunal, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the Appeals may be allowed. 4. Shri M.P. Devnath, the ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondent-Assessees submits that in addition to the Tribunal's decision in the case of C.C.E., Meerut v. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als are material handling equipment and since they handle the raw materials as well as final product, they are used in the process of manufacture of the final product. The ld. Counsel, therefore, submitted that the impugned order may be upheld and the Appeals may be rejected. 6. Heard the submissions of both sides. Perused the case law cited and relied upon by the Respondents as well as by t....