TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 1044
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Respondent. ORDER In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the dispute pertains to certain modvat credit claims of the respondent, which were allowed by the lower appellate authority on various grounds. In adjudication of a show-cause notice, the Original Authority had disallowed modvat credits totaling to over ₹ 10 crores to the assessee. In an appeal filed by the assessee, the ld. Commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eived in their factory prior to 23-7-1996. In this connection, ld. Jt. CDR has claimed support from Inarco Company Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore [2005 (192) E.L.T. 373 (Tri. - Chennai)] wherein, on the particular facts of that case, it was held that Notification No. 14/96-C.E. (N.T.) ibid was neither clarificatory nor retrospective in effect. According to the ld. Jt. CDR, Steel tubes & pipes and refract....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 respe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was admissible to the respondent. In respect of the Steel tubes & pipes installed in the off-factory jetty, the dispute arose as to whether modvat credit could be taken on these items which were installed outside the factory. In this connection, ld. counsel has pointed out as the jetty was also subsequently brought within the factory plan and therefore the capital goods installed in the jetty shou....