Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Chloride Industries

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Chloride Industries

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 20, 1997

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/10670

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/10670
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Jan 20, 1997
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Chloride Industries

Legal References

Reported In: (1999)(108)ELT506Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. appeal is against the order of the commissioner (appeals) holding that the assessee was entitled to modvat credit under rule 57q of the duty paid on air compressors used by it in its plant for making electric batteries.3. i do not think it necessary to go into the exact function of the com-, pressor or whether it was used for bringing about any change in any substance. the reason for this is that it is not disputed that air compressor was part of the assessee's plant for producing electric batteries. it would, therefore be a component of a plant and hence entitled for modvat credit under sub-clause (b) of the explanation to rule 57q(1). i decline to interfere.

Full Judgment

1. Appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the assessee was entitled to Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the duty paid on air compressors used by it in its plant for making electric batteries.

3. I do not think it necessary to go into the exact function of the com-, pressor or whether it was used for bringing about any change in any substance. The reason for this is that it is not disputed that air compressor was part of the assessee's plant for producing electric batteries. It would, therefore be a component of a plant and hence entitled for Modvat credit under Sub-clause (b) of the Explanation to Rule 57Q(1). I decline to interfere.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Chloride Industries Same Subject Excise