2001 (12) TMI 109

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ere is no representation for the applicants in spite of notice. The respondent is represented by ld. SDR Sh. Atul Saxena. We have examined the grounds of the present application vis-a-vis the finding recorded in the Final Order. We have also heard ld. SDR. 3. The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which had denied capital goods credit to the party on air-conditioners brought into and installed in their factory during November - December, 1995, on the ground that air-conditioners stood excluded from the coverage of the definition of 'capital goods' under Rule 57Q by virtue of Clause (d)(iv) of Explanation (1) to sub-rule (1) of the rule. This decision of the lower appellate authority was upheld by this Tribunal as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....95, was compressor falling under Heading 84.14. This item was distinct and different from air-conditioner falling under Heading No. 84.15. Therefore, the Tribunal's finding as recorded in its Final Order ibid to the effect that air-conditioners stood specifically excluded from the purview of the definition of capital goods by virtue of Notification 11/95-C.E.(N.T.) is patently erroneous. We further observe that, in the Final Order under reference, the applicability of the provisions of Clause (a) under Explanation (1) to Rule 57Q was not examined by the Tribunal. Yet another mistake apparent from the record. As per Clause (a), capital goods meant machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances used for producing or pro....