1998 (4) TMI 395

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bserved that the goods were essentially refractory items, that they were used for the maintenance of furnace and were not used for bringing out, any change, etc. in the material under process. On this ground he denied the Modvat credit. His denial was upheld by the Commissioner. In doing so, he observed that whereas refractory bricks falling under chapter Heading 69 were admissible inputs, the disputed inputs were covered under chapter Headings 25 and 38. The present appeal arises out of this order. 2. Shri Rajesh Chibber, ld. Counsel appeared on behalf of the Appellants and Shri D.K. Nayyar, JDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue. The ld. Counsel referred to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Century Cements Ltd. v. C.C.E. repor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oth sides. It has been brought out in the Ministry's clarification cited that where the capital goods claimed were capable of falling under the ambit of clauses (a) to (c) of explanation, they should be so allowed, even when the specific description of such goods came to be embodied in the explanation only an introduction of clause (d) from 23-3-1996. Therefore, it is not correct to say that before this date reference would not qualify. 5. These materials are not parts or spares of the furnace but they are (sic). The word has been extensively discussed in several judgments. In the cited judgement of the Tribunal in the case of India Cements also the logic of the Tribunal is based on this provision in Rule 57Q. The Madras High Court ....