Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Star Wire (P) Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Star Wire (P) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided May 11, 1999
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/15782

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Star Wire (P) Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(1999)(65)ECC444

Excerpt

1. the revenue is aggrieved by the order of the commissioner of central excise (appeals), new delhi extending modvat credit on items such as refractory bricks, thinner and other foundry chemicals stopper head, p.p. resin, ferro chrome, grinding wheels, hot tops etc. we find that the items in question have seen held to be eligible for credit by the lower appellate authorities, following the ratio of various tribunal's decisions holding that such items are eligible for modvat credit.commissioner (appeals) has relied upon a later judgment by a larger bench in the case of ramakrishna steel industries v. cce reported in 1996 (82) e.l.t. 575, escorts ltd. v. cce, chandigarh -1996 (16) rlt 712 and union carbide india v. cce - 1996 (86) e.l.t. 613.2. ld. dr brings out to our notice special leave petition to be filed to the hon'ble supreme court on extension of credit on some of these items and the civil appeal has been admitted as seen in 1997 (95) elt.a226 in the case of kesari steels v. collector - tribunal's final order no. a/808/94-nrb dated 8-9-1994 [1996 (74) e.l.t. 123 (t)]. however, in the absence of any stay of operation tribunal's order which had held that the remaining mass etc. were entitled to credit we follow the ratio of the tribunal's orders cited by the lower appellate authority, uphold the order and reject the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi extending Modvat credit on items such as Refractory bricks, Thinner and other foundry chemicals Stopper Head, P.P. Resin, Ferro Chrome, Grinding Wheels, hot tops etc. We find that the items in question have seen held to be eligible for credit by the lower Appellate Authorities, following the ratio of various Tribunal's decisions holding that such items are eligible for Modvat credit.

Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon a later judgment by a Larger Bench in the case of Ramakrishna Steel Industries v. CCE reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 575, Escorts Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh -1996 (16) RLT 712 and Union Carbide India v. CCE - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613.

2. Ld. DR brings out to our notice Special Leave Petition to be filed to the Hon'ble Supreme Court on extension of credit on some of these items and the Civil Appeal has been admitted as seen in 1997 (95) ELT.A226 in the case of Kesari Steels v. Collector - Tribunal's Final Order No. A/808/94-NRB dated 8-9-1994 [1996 (74) E.L.T. 123 (T)]. However, in the absence of any stay of operation Tribunal's order which had held that the remaining mass etc. were entitled to credit we follow the ratio of the Tribunal's orders cited by the lower Appellate Authority, uphold the order and reject the appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial