2001 (8) TMI 148

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e case may be, for the purpose of taking Modvat credit during the material period. The said goods are the following : (a) Welding Electrodes. (b) Clean Flow Tulsion T-40 and Tulsion A27 GEL. (c) CAFJ Sheets/AMJ 429 OIL EPS. (d) Aquat and Boiler Plus. (e) White Oil. (f) V. Belt. 2. The adjudicating [authority] disallowed Modvat credit of the duty paid on the above items, on the ground that they were not eligible capital goods or inputs. In respect of V. Belts, Modvat credit was disallowed on a further ground that the assessee did not produce valid duty-paying documents covering the said goods. The lower appellate authority, in the appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the Assistant Commissioner, allowed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....round that the Tribunal's decision in Kalyani Steels Ltd. v. CCE, Pune [1998 (99) E.L.T. 620] relied on by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is not relevant inasmuch as the question involved in that case was relating to non-filing of Modvat declaration and not the modvatability of the goods involved as in the instant case. Ld. SDR Shri A.S. Bedi has reiterated all these grounds and prayed for setting aside the order impugned. Ld. Advocate Shri Harbans Singh for the respondents has opposed the prayer and endeavoured to defend the impugned order. However, fairly enough, he has conceded that no duty-paying document could be produced before the Departmental authorities in respect of V. Belts. 4. Carefully considered the submissions. The questio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the finding of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) stands accepted by the appellant. As regards CAFJ Sheets/AMJ 429 OIL EFS, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that these items were used as packing in the steam pipes to check and prevent leakage. The appellant has also stated the use to the same effect. Hence there is no ground for the appellant for challenging the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in relation to the goods under consideration. As regards Aquat and Boiler Plus, the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is that they were used for maintainance of boiler/plant and machinery, while the case of the appellant is that they were used as descaling agent in the water tubes of the boiler. The appellants' case is no different from the lo....