TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (9) TMI 257
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted in a synopsis the submissions on behalf of the appellants. 3.Shri T.K. Kar, ld. SDR appears for the Revenue. 4.It is seen that Modvat credit of Rs. 13,16,502/- was disallowed on the ground that the same has been taken on the basis of extra copy of the invoice. The appellants have contended that the invoice in question was a duplicate copy for transporter and was printed to the same effect. However, in addition, due to computer mistake, the expression 'extra copy' also got printed inadvertently below the column "consignee" in the said invoice. He submits that the authorities below have disallowed the credit only on this ground that the expression 'extra copy' w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... manufacture of final product. The above position was also clarified by the Board vide its Circular No. 441/7/99-CX., dated 23-2-99 and the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Kamakhya Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2000 (121) E.L.T. 247 (Tri. - LB) = 2000 (40) RLT 575, after considering the above amendment and the "Board's Circular, has held that the pending appeals have to be decided in the light of the said Circular and the said amendment. 5.We have considered the submissions as made by ld. Advocate and find a lot of force in the same. The words "duplicate for transporter" was admittedly printed on the invoice in question. In addition, the expression "extra copy" also got printed on account of computer mistake. The ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....disallowed on the ground of delayed filing of declaration under Rule 57T. The appellants' contention is that the credit was taken during the period 1-9-96 to 31-12-96 and in terms of the provisions of Rule 57T(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, Modvat declaration could be filed within a period of one month after receiving the capital goods and the Assistant Commissioner was given power to allow a further period of two months on sufficient cause being shown. They have contended that almost in all the cases the declarations were filed within a period of about 10 days from the date of receipt of the capital goods. As such, the Assistant Commissioner should have condoned the same, especially after introduction of sub-rule (13) in Rule 57T and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of C.C.E. v. Punjab Concast Ltd. reported in 2002 (150) E.L.T. 457 laying down that welding electrodes used for filling cavity in moulds/castings and for removal of deposits on the ingots is an admissible input under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules. To the same effect is the Tribunal's decision in the case of C.C.E. v. M/s. U.P. State Sugar Corpn. reported in 2002 (147) E.L.T. 983 holding welding electrodes as eligible for the purposes of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. In the case of M/s. Malabar Cements Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2002 (149) E.L.T. 754, welding electrodes were held to satisfy the definition of plant and hence admissible for credit under Rule 57Q. By following the ratio of the above decision, we set aside the demand on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce to show that the same were fitted in Forklift Trucks. The appellants' contention is that the goods were purchased from M/s. Macneill Engineering Co. Ltd. who are manufacturers of Forklift Trucks and the said wheel and tyre assembly is used only for Forklift Trucks. By taking in account the above facts into consideration, we set aside the confirmation of demand of Rs. 3912/-. Another small amount of Rs. 1201/- availed on Power Module has been disallowed. The said item is an Electronic Component used and fitted in Distribution Control System and is covered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of M/s. Jawahar Mills Ltd. reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3. We accordingly set aside the lower authorities' order on this ground. ....