2005 (5) TMI 384

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Respondent. [Order]. -  Modvat credits totalling to Rs. 5,20,611/- were denied to the appellants in respect of a large number of capital goods which were installed in their factory during the period 23-7-1996 to 31-8-1996. The credits were taken in 3/98. As, in the relevant show cause notice, time-bar was not raised as a ground for denying credit, no limitation issue is involved i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Clause (i) of the Explanation ibid as it stood prior to the amendment and consequently the benefit of capital goods credit will not be available to the above goods falling under Heading 84.74 for the aforesaid period. 2. The learned Consultant for the appellants submits that Notification 25/96-C.E. (N.T.) was clarificatory and hence retrospective. In this connection, he relies on the Trib....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....;  1998 (102) E.L.T. 89 - Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. CCE 5. We agree with the contentions raised by the ld. Advocate for the respondents and hold that the tubes, pipes and fittings used for conveying of liquids were covered by the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q even prior to its amendment and were entitled to Modvat credit. As such no merit is being found in the Revenue....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....refully, I find that, as rightly pointed out by the learned JDR, there was nothing in Notification 25/96-C.E. (N.T.) to indicate that the amendments proposed therein were meant to be retroactive. One of the results of the amendment was that Heading 84.74 occurring in the exclusionary part of clause (i) of Explanation to Rule 57Q(1) got deleted. The legislative intent was very clear and the same wa....