TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (6) TMI 627
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olved are: i. Cement ii. Iron & Steel & Structure iii. Construction equipment's,Drilling machines, welding equipment's, electrode & parts & grinding wheels. iv. Fire extinguisher, base frame, timer v. Work shoptools, CR, steel strips, PVC label vi. Electrical tools vii. Laminated sheet viii. Magnetic ramming mass ix. High alumina refractory cement x. Electric wires, cables and electrical goods and xi. EOT cranes. 2. During March 95 to June 95, M/s. Llyods Steel Industries (herein after referred to as "assessee") had taken credit on the above mentioned goods among others, which according to the department did not satisfy the definition of Capital Goods as they were not used in producing or processing of any goo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt and steel are used by the assessee for construction of foundation and similar civil construction which are not excisable commodities. For cement and steel to be eligible for modvat credit, it has to be component of some item which is excisable or eligible for credit under the Rule 57Q (1). Shri Vipin Jain has contended that in earlier similar cases, modvat credit on cement and steel has been allowed. He relied on the following decisions. (i) United Phosphorus Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2002 (150) ELT 650 (T) (ii) Lloyds Metals & Engineers Ltd. Vs. CCE - Order No. CII/360 62/WZB/2002 dtd. 1.2.02. (iii) Lloyds Metals & Engineers Ltd. Vs. CCE - Order No. CII/2664/WZB/01 dtd. 17.10.01 [reported in 2002 (50) RLT 109 (CEGAT-Mum.)]. We find that in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the tribunal in this case to Bajaj Auto, Saurabh Metal and Rathi Udyog cited Supra. Following the ratio of these decisions we hold that credit is admissible on Grinding Wheels. We do not however agree with Shri Jain that credit is admissible on welding electrodes and drilling machines also. Following the ratio of decision in the case of CCE Vs. Panyam Cements and Minerals 2003 (54) RLT 557 (CEGAT-Ban.)=2003 (160) ELT 278 (T), Zuary Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2003 (55) RLT 563 (CEGAT-Ban.)=2003 (160) ELT 670 (T) and Jaypee Rewa Plant Vs. CCE 2003 (57) RLT 739 (CEGAT-LB)=2003 (159) ELT 553 (T-LB) denial of credit on welding electrodes and Drilling machines upheld. (c) Modvat credit on Fire Extinguisher, Base frame and timer etc., is denied by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actory cement and Ramming mass has been denied on the ground that these chemicals are consumable and in no way can be accepted as components of furnace or otherwise. Shri Vipin Jain has contended that Alumina refractory cement is of special grade specially made for use in the furnace for fixing Components within a furnace such as Refractory Bricks etc. the bricks are required to be fixed in proper place for which cement and ramming mass is required without which furnace will remain incapable of carrying out the function. He relied on the following decisions in support of his contention and submitted that credit is admissible on these items : (i) Kalyani Steel Ltd. Vs. CCE - 1998 (99) ELT 620 (ii) Century Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE - 1998 (24) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nes are essential and important transportation machinery in the large factory of the assessee and without this the production process will come to stand still. Apart from this prior to 16-3-95, EOT cranes were covered under clause (a) of definition under Rule 57Q, since the same are inseparatable part of the assessee's plant and therefore credit was admissible. Shri Vipin Jain relied upon the following decisions and contended that the credit is admissible on EOT Cranes. i. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE - 1998 (102) ELT 281 ii. CCE Vs. Nova Udyog Ltd. - 1996 (88) ELT 532 iii. Rathi Ispat Vs. CCE - 2000 (116) ELT 50 5. Keeping in view the findings of commissioner and following the ratio of the above mentioned decision we hol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emical used in the foundation of machines is also admissible. (b) Credit on transfer car for scrap has been denied on the ground that it does not play any role in the manufacture of final product. Following the ratio of the decisions in the case of Sterlite Industries. Nova Udyog, Rathi Ispat cited supra we hold that credit on these items is admissible. (c) Credit on air pollution equipment has been denied on the ground that the goods can be manufactured without installation of air pollution control equipment and therefore the equipment is not capital goods. Following the ratio of the decision in the case of IFFCO Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad, 1996 (15) RLT 498 (SC)=1996 (86) ELT 177 (SC) we hold that credit is admissible on this item. (d) Credit ....