2010 (9) TMI 1044

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Rs. 10 crores to the assessee. In an appeal filed by the assessee, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the same to the appellant. Hence this appeal by the Revenue, wherein the challenge is found to be restricted to the following :- (a)     Credit on Steel tubes & pipes prior to 23-7-1996. (b)     Credit on Steel tubes & pipes installed in jetty away from the factory, prior to 23-7-1996. (c)     Credit on refractories prior to 23-7-1996. 2. Ld. Jt.CDR has reiterated the relevant grounds of the appeal. He submits that the above credits were allowed to the respondent by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) by giving retrospective effect to the Notification No. 14/96-C.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt [2001 (136) E.L.T. 214 (Tri.-Delhi)] 3. We have considered the submissions and the case law cited before us. We find that the lower appellate authority eminently addressed the issues and arrived at correct conclusions. It is noted that, even prior to 23-7-1996, the goods covered by clauses (a), (b) & (c) of the explanation to Rule 57Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were capital goods in respect of which modvat credit was admissible to the manufacturer of final products. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) found that the Steel tubes & pipes and refractories were squarely covered by those provisions of Rule 57Q(1). He noted that the specific mention of the goods under clause (d) of Rule 57Q(1) from 23-7-1996 would not have the effect ....