TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (2) TMI 144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has allowed the Modvat credit of the disputed amount to the respondents on MS structures and the other goods detailed in the show cause notice. 2. The respondents took Modvat credit on certain capital goods which were received by them for setting up the Plant for the manufacture of VP sugar. The goods included sugar mill machinery, boil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the order-in-original and contended that no Modvat credit could be allowed to the respondents on steel structures as well as on the goods covered by invoices mentioned at Sl. Nos. 2 and 3 of the Annexure A to the show cause notice. On the other hand, the learned Counsel has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. I have heard both sides. From the perus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee. Learned JDR has not been able to cite any law to the contrary. 5. The ratio of law laid down in Rosa Sugar Works v. CCE, Kanpur - 1999 (114) E.L.T. 950 relied upon by the adjudicating authority for disallowing Modvat credit on M.S. structures is not attracted to the facts of the case as in that case the structures were found to have been used only for fabrication and construction pu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no dispute regarding the receipt of the duty paid goods covered by the disputed invoices mentioned at Sl. Nos. 2 and 3 of the Annexure A to the show cause notice and the utilisation of same in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, by the respondents. Therefore, on technical ground, the Modvat credit could not be disallowed to the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightl....