2005 (6) TMI 103

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... No. E/587/2004, the question is whether the benefit of capital goods credit under Rule 57Q is admissible to the respondents in respect of cement used for construction of civil foundation as structural support to plant and machinery in April, 1995. After hearing both sides, I find that Modvat credit was allowed on this item to the same party in Final Order Nos. 404-407/2004 dated 14-5-2004 [2004 (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ri. - Mumbai) in addition to Final Order Nos. 404 to 407/2004 ibid. 2. After considering the cited decisions, I am inclined to follow the decision rendered by the Chennai Bench in the respondents case, in preference to the decisions rendered by other Benches of the Tribunal in the cases of other parties. Accordingly the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing capital goods credit ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....v. Commissioner [2001 (133) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]. As regards cement, I have already held it to be eligible for capital goods credit under Rule 57Q for the said period. In Appeal No. E/585/2004, there is a third item of capital goods viz., 20 mm Rod material, which was used by the respondents in the fabrication of new cement mill in Mar. '95. Structural materials like Steel Rods were held to be eligibl....