2003 (3) TMI 243

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1528/2001 and 1529/2001 respectively. Out of the credit amount of Rs. 3,87,503/- involved in Appeal No. 1527/2001, a major part (Rs. 3,74,400/-) was denied in respect of Pneumatic Conveying System and parts thereof. Similarly a major part (Rs. 16,902/-) of the credit of Rs. 17,679/- involved in Appeal No. 1529/2001 was also disallowed in respect of the said goods. The entire credit of Rs. 3,88,700/- involved in Appeal No. 1528/2001 was also disallowed in respect of the same goods. In Appeal No. 1527/2001, no specific grounds have been raised against the denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 10,857/- while, in respect of the credit of Rs. 2246/- denied by the lower appellate authority, the grounds of challenge have not been pressed by the appellant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsel argued, the goods was used within the factory for the purpose of unloading the raw material and, therefore, it was eligible capital goods under Rule 57Q. Counsel submitted that the lower appellate authority had wrongly classified the goods as specially designed truck under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule and held that it stood excluded from the coverage of Rule 57Q (1). Counsel submitted that the appellants had not claimed Modvat credit in respect of the whole truck. They had claimed the benefit only in respect of the pump attached to the container mounted on the truck. The pump was classifiable under Heading 84.14 of the CET Schedule and was so classified by its manufacturer as evidenced by the invoice. Even the show ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... respect of Pneumatic Conveying System and parts thereof mentioned in the annexures to the show cause notices, the allegation was that the goods were not covered under that category of capital goods which were described at Serial No. 2 of the Table annexed to sub-rule (1) of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as the rule stood during the material periods. The relevant description of capital goods given in Column No. 2 against Sr. No. 2 of the table annexed to sub-rule (1) of Rule 57Q, as the rule stood during the material periods, reads as under :- "All goods falling under Chapter 84 (other than internal combustion engines falling under heading No. 84.07 or 84.08 and of a kind used in motor vehicles, compressors falling under headi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and machinery". It is difficult to treat a compressor pump attached to the fly ash container mounted on truck, as a "compressor of a kind used in refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances and machinery". It appears from the record that though the appellants had originally declared the goods under a Tariff Heading other than 84.14, they later submitted a corrigendum to the declaration changing the tariff entry to 84.14. Neither of the authorities below has disputed this fact. It was, therefore, not justifiable for them to reach a conclusion that the appellants had not filed any valid declaration in respect of the goods in question. The goods were declared and fell in the category of eligible capital goods described at Sr. No. 2 of the t....