Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Micro Abrasives (i) Ltd.

Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. vs Micro Abrasives (i) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Mar 25, 1998

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/13158

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/13158
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Mar 25, 1998
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Respondent

Micro Abrasives (i) Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (1998)LC405Tri(Delhi)

Excerpt

.....two articles. for this, he relies on two judgments namely, :- 3. as against the aforesaid contentions, the learned consultant shri s.k. gadhok submits that so far as wires and cables are concerned, it has been held by a series of judgments that this commodity would be entitled to modvat credit on capital goods under rule 57q. as regards the vibration controllers, he submits that this is also essential for manufacturing the final product. in his support he relies on the following judgments :-commissioner of central excise, meerut v. modi xerox ltd. - 1996 (88) e.l.t. 530 (t)j.k. synthetics ltd. v. commissioner of central excise, jaipur -1996 (88) e.l.t. 785 (t) iii. in re : kilburn chemical ltd. (commissioner appeals) - 1996 (88) e.l.t. 598associated cement companies v. commissioner of central excise, chandigarh v. mahindra & mahindra ltd. v. commissioner of central excise, aurangabad -1996 (87) e.l.t. 258 (t) vi. m.f. (d.r.) circular no. 276/110/96-tru, dated 2-12-1996 - 1996 (88) e.l.t. 756 vii. commissioner of central excise v. rajasthan state chemical works - 1991 (55) e.l.t. 444 (s.c.)jindal strips v. commissioner of central excise, new delhi -1997 (94) e.l.t. 315 (t)modi alkalies & chemicals ltd. v. collector of central excise, jaipur x. morval vinyle ltd. v. cce, meerut -1997 (90) e.l.t. 361 (t) xi. c.c.e., meerut v. uttam industries engg. pvt. ltd. -1996 (86) e.l.t. 498 (t).4. i have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both the sides.i have gone through the impugned order. i agree with the findings of the lower appellate authority that both the articles are essential for producing the final product. but for their use, final products would not have been manufactured and could not have been manufactured. they are parts of the plant. hence, i dismiss the appeal of the revenue.

Full Judgment

1. The question involved in this matter is regarding the admis-sibility of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The goods are:- 2. The lower appellate authority has held that the aforesaid goods are entitled to the Modvat credit as capital goods under the aforesaid rule. Hence, this appeal by the Revenue.

3. The Learned JDR, Shri A.M. Tilak submits that both the aforesaid articles do not have any function for producing and processing any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance. Hence, the Modvat credit should not be made available to the aforesaid two articles. For this, he relies on two judgments namely, :- 3. As against the aforesaid contentions, the learned Consultant Shri S.K. Gadhok submits that so far as wires and cables are concerned, it has been held by a series of judgments that this commodity would be entitled to Modvat credit on capital goods under Rule 57Q. As regards the Vibration Controllers, he submits that this is also essential for manufacturing the final product. In his support he relies on the following judgments :-Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut v. Modi Xerox Ltd. - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 530 (T)J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur -1996 (88) E.L.T. 785 (T) iii. In RE : Kilburn Chemical Ltd. (Commissioner Appeals) - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 598Associated Cement Companies v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad -1996 (87) E.L.T. 258 (T) vi. M.F. (D.R.) Circular No. 276/110/96-TRU, dated 2-12-1996 - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 756 vii. Commissioner of Central Excise v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 444 (S.C.)Jindal Strips v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi -1997 (94) E.L.T. 315 (T)Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur x. Morval Vinyle Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut -1997 (90) E.L.T. 361 (T) xi.

C.C.E., Meerut v. Uttam Industries Engg. Pvt. Ltd. -1996 (86) E.L.T. 498 (T).

4. I have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both the sides.

I have gone through the impugned order. I agree with the findings of the lower appellate authority that both the articles are essential for producing the final product. But for their use, final products would not have been manufactured and could not have been manufactured. They are parts of the plant. Hence, I dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. vs Micro Abrasives (i) Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax