- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. At the time of admitting the appeal on 12-12-2003, the following substantial questions were framed : (1) "Whether in the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in denying the Modvat Credit claim of the appellant merely because the appellant has at an early stage classified the storage tank under Tariff Chapter 73 and extending the requirement of Sub-clause (1) of Clause (a) of Rule 57AA to the goods falling in other clauses of Rule 57AA?" (2) "Whether mere wrong mentioning of classification by appellant could result in depriving him of the benefits of the Modvat Credit Facility for the capital goods falling under other clauses of Rule 57AA?"
(2.) The principal question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the storage tank, motor rails & platforms in question, which according to the appellant-manufacturer was wrongly classified by him fall under Chapter 73.09 by taking it to be storage of general use, though he has later on claimed classification under Chapter 84.19 inter alia on the ground that storage tank concerned, is actively used for manufacturing activity of the plant and is an integral part of the manufacturing process, therefore, ought to have been classified under Chapter 84.19.
(3.) The Modvat credit in respect of inputs/capital goods used for construction of tank has been disallowed by the Adjudicating Authority by taking the classification of the article in question under Tariff Chapter 73.;