TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (10) TMI 417
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learned JDR has contended that no evidence whatsoever has been brought on record to prove the use of the ramming mass by the respondents in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product in the factory. In reply to the show cause notice, they had nowhere even disclosed the use. Therefore, the Modvat credit could not be allowed. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents has heavily leaned on the decisions of the Tribunal as well as the Apex Court to contend that any article brought in the factory by the manufacturer and used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product has to be treated as an input or capital good for allowing the Modvat credit. The learned Counsel has referred to the following decisions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....07 (S.C.). 3. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. There is no dispute with the proposition of law as laid down in the above referred cases that the words used in the statute are to be interpreted in their simple and plain meaning and nothing can be added or subtracted therefrom. There is also hardly any dispute regarding the proposition of law laid down in the above referred cases that the ramming mass or any other goods brought in the factory by the manufacturer, if used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products, would be eligible for Modvat credit either as input or capital goods, as the case may be. But it has to be established and proved by the manufacturer before claiming the Modvat credit in res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eversing the order-in-original had nowhere recorded findings regarding the actual user of the ramming mass by the respondents in their factory. He has simply by relying upon the ratio of the law laid down in the above referred cases allowed the Modvat credit without examining the actual user and the purpose of the ramming mass, by the respondents in their factory. 4. Therefore, in the light of the discussion made above, in my view no benefit of the ratio of the law laid down in the above referred cases can be availed by the respondents. The adjudicating authority had disallowed the Modvat credit to the respondents on the item in question by holding it to be not covered as input under Rule 57A of the Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) h....