TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (6) TMI 470
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....im is produced as under: 3. I have gone through carefully the facts of the case and the submissions made by the appellants. The lower authority has denied the credit in respect of the following machinery/ components/ spares: Switch gear, Tubes of plastics, valves, spare drive ring, valve rings and diaphragm value, seals, seal spares, rubber tining. Analog input annunciator. Neoprene Hose connectors. Turbo charger, Impeller, adhesive, Cement, Agitator, Sensitive balance, Transformer oil, Titanium Thermowell, Filter element cartridge, PVC cable, spares for pumps, Xomox valve, energy conservation equipment, Glass Filled PTFE rod. Grid element and Bibby resilient couplings. PVC pipes, wire braided steam hose, Rubber hose assessory, Pipes,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sible under Rule 57Q. Bolts and Nuts : Bolts and Nuts do not fall within the category of capital goods. These are merely required for fixing machines etc., Chlorine cylinder value : These are used in cylinder. Cylinders are used for packing and hence these are not capital goods falling within the scope of Rule 57Q and therefore, the valves used in cylinders are also not capital goods. Indion: It is used to remove minerals present in the process water. It does not fall within the definition of capital goods. Spares for Pumps and Xomox Valves : The lower authority has denied the credit on the ground that they had taken the credit on the basis of invoices which were not in the name of the manufacturing unit. However the appellants con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Chemicals v. CCE 1999 (111) ELT 705 (T) c) CCE v. Tiwari Sugar Complex 1998 (102) ELT 750 2. Rubber lining a) CCE v. Kothari Sugars Ltd. 2001 (136) ELT 1071 b) Lalji Board Industries v. CCE 1999 (82) ECR 775 (T) 3. Adhesives CCE v. Chemplast Sanmar 2001 (45) RLT 440 (T) : 2001 (98) ECR 104 T 4. Neoprene house a) CCE v. Birla Jute Inds. Ltd. 2002 connector (139) ELT A 93 b) CCE v. Chemplast Sanmar 2001 (45) RLT 440 (T) c) CCE v. Surya Roshni Ltd. 2001 (128) ELT 293 : 2001 (96) ECR 286 (T) 5. Indion a) MALCO v. CCE 2001 (136) ELT 192 (T) b) CCE v. Goodyear India Ltd. 2000 (124) ELT 319 6. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an styles a) Polyplex Corporation Ltd. v. CCE 2000 (115) ELT 87 Affirmed in 2001 (132) ELT 3 (SC) : 2000 (88) ECR 675 (T) b) CCE v. Chemplast Sunmar 2001 (132) ELT 504 (T) : 2001 (98) ECR 104 (T) 5. Hacksaw Blades Batliboi & Co. v. CCE 1998 (97) ELT 108 (T) : 1998 (75) ECR 18 (T) Appeal No. E/622/99 & 630/99 CCE, Tiruchirapalli v. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Chennai Table of Case Law and Goods Sl. Goods Case Law No. 1. Switch Gear a) CCE v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. 2001 132 ELT 3 (SC) b) Nahar International v. CCE 2000 123 ELT 767 (T) c) CCE v. Pittie Cement 1999 112 ELT 1050 (T) d) Kanoria Chemicals v. CCE 1997 95 ELT 301 (T) 2. Grid ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Laxmi Precision Screws Ltd. 2001 (132) ELT 310 (T) 12. Filtering a) CCE v. Surya Roshni 2001 (128) equipment ELT 293 (T) b) Maihar Cement v. CCE 2000 (125) ELT 629 (T) 13. PVC Cables a) CCE v. Surya Roshni 2001 (128) ELT 293 (T-LB) b) CCE v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. 2001 132 ELT 3 (SC) c) CCE v. Indore v. Flex Industries 1999 (113) ELT 425 (T) 14. Energy a) CCE v. Carborundum Universal Conservation 2001 (130) ELT 752 (T) equipment 15. Glass filled a) Lupin laboratories v. CCE 1998 PTFE Rod (100) ELT 52 (T) b) Malco v. CCE, Coimbatore 2001 (136) ELT 182 16. Pipes, Flanges a) CCE v. Surya Roshni Ltd. 2001 (128) ELT 293 (T) &nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te the departmental view for rejection of modvat credit on those items. 5. On a careful consideration of the submissions, and on a perusal of the impugned order, we notice that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not rightly granted the benefit of modvat credit in respect of the items claimed by the assessee and has held them to be not capital goods. There is no reason to differ from the view already expressed by the Tribunal to grant modvat credit in respect of 14 items in which the assessee is claiming the modvat credit. Respectfully following the ratio thereof, the claim of the assessee is accepted by allowing their appeals. 6. In respect of Revenue's appeals, we notice that the Revenue has challenged the Modvat credit in respect of....