2005 (2) TMI 684

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ya Devi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  The short question arising for consideration in this appeal is whether capital goods credit was available to "KECL make Electrostatic Hydraulic Oil cleaner" which was used by the appellants as pollution control equipment. The said equipment was used as a spare to Electrostatic precipitator which was, in turn, used to filter the unburnt fuel ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is under challenge in the present appeal on the strength of the Supreme Court's judgment in Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd. v. CCE [1996 (86) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.)]. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has relied on para 9 of the cited judgment as also on Final Order No. 1073/04 dated 23-12-2004 [2005 (186) E.L.T. 417 (T)] passed by this Bench in Appeal No. E/837/2003. Ld. SDR has reiterated th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntrol, was a post-manufacture activity, naphtha could not be considered to have been used in the process of manufacture of end product. This argument was rejected by their lordships and it was held that treatment of effluents for pollution control was also a part of the manufacturing process. This ruling supports the present appeal. It is also noticed that, in Final Order No. 1073/04 [2005 (186) E....