TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (6) TMI 516
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J) (Oral)]. Both the original and first appellate authorities have denied Modvat credit of Rs. 2,38,986/- to the appellants under Rule 57Q in respect of capital goods including "Ring Frame" for the period March 1994 to December 1994. Out of this amount, an amount of Rs. 1,93,979/- is the amount of credit disallowed in respect of "Ring Frame". The bala....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts under the Term Loan Agreement were fully paid up. Further, we have come across a letter dated 8-11-1994 of M/s. SIPCOT addressed to the appellants, wherein the former declared that the ownership of the capital goods vested in the latter and that they (M/s SIPCOT) would not claim any depreciation on the goods for income-tax purposes. It thus appears from the records that the property in the capi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsferred to them and, therefore, the appellants' right to avail Modvat credit on the "Ring Frame" was not hit by the bar contained in Sub-Rule 3. Ld. DR has opposed this argument, with reference to certain clauses of the Deed of Hypothecation. We have already noted that we have perused the said deed and have not found anything therein evidencing transfer of property in the goods from the appellant....