TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 722
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ortion of the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) Aquat and Boiler Sl.No. 26 of SCN dated 04.11.94), Unipro 38 and Emklo 220 (Sl. No. 24 & 25 of SCN dated 25.11.94) and Component Glue (Sl. No. 52 of SCN dated 13.3.95). All these items are in the nature of inputs. The appellants themselves have admitted in their EA-1 submission that these items are inputs. The appellants contention is that all these items have been received in their factory and used in the manufacture of excisable goods therefore, they are eligible inputs under Modvat scheme. They further stated that denial of Modvat credit on the ground of procedural non-compliance is not proper. In this regard, I find that appellants have claimed Modvat credit under Rule 57Q whereas,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to state that denial of Modvat credit vide the impugned order dated 1.4.03 is against the settled position of law and hence not maintainable. In this matter, I find that the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of National Steel Industries Ltd. vs. CCE reported in [2002 (149) ELT 735 (Tri-Del)] has held that credit is not admissible on the capital goods which are used for repair and maintenance of the machineries in the workshop. Therefore, I also find that Modvat credit is not admissible on this good. 5. Learned advocate submits that definition of capital goods was amended vide notification No. 14/96-CE (NT), with effect from 23.7.96 defining capital goods by referring to Chapter heading / sub-heading of the Central Excise Tariff. The said amendm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of Nangganj Sihori Sugar Co.Ltd. vs. CCE, Lucknow vide order dated 435/2011-SM dt.14.7.11 wherein identical submissions made by both sides and the Tribunal observed as under:- Learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the judgement of Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vikram Cement vs. CCE, Indore reported in [2009 (242) ELT 545 (Tri-Del)] and judgement of Apex Court in the case of Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut I reported in [2010 (260) ELT 321 (SC)]. I have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. I find that orders of the adjudicating authority as well as from the submissions of the learned counsel that the issue involved in this case and the disputed fact is whether duty....