TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (8) TMI 523
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red by the definition of capital goods as given in clause (1) of the explanation to Rule 57Q. 2. Arguing on the first ground, Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned Advocate for the appellants submits that they had admittedly filed the MODVAT Declarations in respect of the following capital goods :- Sl. No. Description Tariff Classification (a) Parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with wire drawing machines 8466.00 (b) Components/Accessories for Wire Drawing Machines 8466.00 (c) Electrical machinery and equipments and parts thereof 8537.00 (d) Parts suitable for use solely or principally with machinery of Heading No. 84.25 to 84.30 8431.00 (e) Spares and accessories solely for use in rope making and cable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ividual names of the capital goods, their sizes, quantity, tariff classification, numbers and dates of the duty paying documents, uses etc. were mentioned. Thus duty paying documents were also filed along with the monthly RT-12 returns. In these circumstances, the rejection of the Modvat Credit on the ground that the declarations were vague, was not justified. In support of his above submissions, Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned Advocate for the appellants referred to the following decisions :- (a) 1998 (103) E.L.T. 672 (Eveready Industries Ltd. v. CCE) - So long as the tariff heading and generic name of the capital goods has been decla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1995 (79) E.L.T. 335 (J.K. Industries v. CCE) - The description "rubber processing chemicals and others" was held sufficient to include retarder which is nothing else but a rubber processing chemical. (h) 1996 (86) E.L.T. 655 (Shree Shyam Philaments v. CCE) - The declaration mentioned generic name, namely, "surface active agents". It was held sufficient to cover silicon spray which is nothing else but a surface active agent. (i) 2000 (115) E.L.T. 847 &nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect that Modvat Credit should not be denied on the technical ground of the Declarations not being in accordance with the provisions of Rule 57T(1). 2.3 As regards rejection of the Modvat credit on the ground that the items did not qualify as capital goods in terms of the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q, he raised a number of grounds. 3. After hearing Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, learned J.D.R. for the Revenue, I find that the denial of Modvat credit on the ground that the Declarations were vague when the appellants had declared the capital goods and had also given the correct tariff classification, is not justified. The ratio of all the decisions referred to by the learned Advocate supports the stand of the appellants tha....