CARBON EVERFLOW LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the view taken by the Assistant Commissioner that electric overhead travelling crane installed in the appellant's factory did not comply with the definition of capital goods as contained in the explanation below Sub -rule (1) of Rule 57Q and hence the duty paid not available as credit under that rule.

(2.) The counsel for the appellant relies upon the decisions of the Tribunal in Man Structurals Ltd. v. CCE 1996 (16) RLT 580 and in CCE v. Uttam Industrial Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and also upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. CCE .

(3.) The departmental representative contends that the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in Telco v. CCE would apply to the facts of this case and thus support the Commissioner (Appeals) order.