TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (5) TMI 128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ows the Modvat credit of carding machines can be given prospective effect lonely. Hence the capital goods which were purchased prior to 21-10-94 are not eligible for taking Modvat Credit. (b) Carded/combed cotton emerging out of the impugned capital goods is classified under Chapter heading 52.02 which was not specified under Rule 57Q till 21-10-94. Duty on these capital goods has been paid before 21-10-94 and the assessee is therefore not eligible to take credit under Rule 57Q. (c) The appellate Authority's view that credit can be disallowed only at the rate of 2½% per quarter of use drawing analogy from Rule 57S has no legal backing, as the formula prescribed under the said rule....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s/spare parts of preparatory machines that were received prior to 21-10-94 and that synthetic transmission belts are entitled to credit. The Revenue is aggrieved and have filed these appeals contesting the view taken by the CCE (A). It is stated that Notification No. 23/94, dated 20-5-94 seeks to amend Rule 57S and does not intend to enlarge the concept of capital goods so as to include the goods used in relation to the manufacture of final product. The term capital goods is well explained/defined under Rule 57Q only and not under Rule 57S as held by the CCE (A). The Revenue further contends that the impugned goods i.e. preparatory machines and spare parts and/or synthetic transmission belt and copper bus bar single line do not fall within ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eared for assessees/ respondents M/s. Sambandam Spinning Mills while Shri T. Ramesh, Advocate appeared for all other respondents. 6. Shri G. Sreekumar Menon, learned SDR pointed out that Notification No. 60/94 C.E. (N.T.) has only prospective effect and it cannot have retrospective effect as all the items were specified under Rule 57 only from the date of Notification. He points out that the issue has already come up before Tribunal on earlier occasions in the case of CCE Coimbatore v. Singaravelar Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 112 (T) and for the reasons recorded therein, the Tribunal had remanded the matter for de novo consideration in respect of speed frame which also being post preparatory textile machine for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rospectively and not from the date of its publication for the reasons given in the order of the adjudicating authority. He contends that the Circular No. 72/94, dated 2-11-94 which itself in para 2 lays down regarding these machines being granted Modvat credit. In support of this plea he cites the decision in the case of Ballarpur Industries v. CCE as reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 312 (T) The Larger Bench comprising of five members considering the pari materia provisions of Rule 57A of CE Rules, in respect of fuel oil used for generation of electricity, after due consideration of the provisions of law held that Modvat credit is admissible in respect of fuel oil. He submits that in the face of this judgment, there is no need for remand of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmits that the issue has been gone into by the Tribunal in the case of Ballarpur Industries case (supra) and also in the case of CCE v. Surya Roshini Ltd. reported in 2001 (128) E.L.T. 293 (T) wherein the scope of capital goods has been discussed by the Larger Bench comprising of five Members. In the face of the clarification and explanation, the matter may be decided in the light of the this judgment. He further submitted that Notification No. 60/94, the Govt. is clarificatory in nature and the Govt. has tried to remove the doubt which was in existence. Therefore, he submits that the principles of mischief rule applies in the present case. He submits that this principle has been applied in the case of Marvel Vinlys Ltd. v. CCE reported in ....