ITI LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant filed this appeal against the order in appeal whereby the benefit of MODVAT credit was denied to the appellant on various grounds.

(2.) The contention of the appellant is that credit of Rs.4615/ - was disallowed on the ground that the credit was taken after six months from the issue of invoice. The submission of appellant is that the credit was taken during the manufacture of June 1995 and there was no time of limit prescribed during this period for availing the credit. Rule 57G was amended by Notification No.28/95 -CE(NT) dated 29.6.95 whereby the limitation of six months was introduced for availing the benefit of credit from the date of invoice. The appellants were not pressing for the credit of Rs.1415/ - which was denied on the ground that duty paying documents were in accordance with the provisions of Notification No.16/94 -CE(NT) dated 30.3.94.

(3.) Learned Counsel submits that the credit of Rs.18,24,245/ - was denied on the parts of machine as the parts are not covered under the definition of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. For this, he relies upon the Larger Bench decision in the case of Union Carbide Vs. C.C.E., reported in 1996 (86) ELT 68, where the Tribunal held that the parts of machine are entitled for the benefit of MODVAT credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. He further submits that the decision of the Larger Bench is affirmed by Hon'ble High Court of Patna in the case of C.C.V. Vs. TELCO, reported in 1999 (31) RLT 800.