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 C. Ex. and Customs Vs. Bharat Forge Ltd.

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs vs Bharat Forge Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 12, 1999
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/15807

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 Mumbai
Decided On
Subject
MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs

Respondent

Bharat Forge Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(1999)(66)ECC197

Excerpt

.....rules, 1944 on cutting oil and quenching oil used for cooling of steel. the revenue is aggrieved by the order of the lower appellate authority who has extended the credit of these two items, holding that they are used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product namely forgings by the respondent.2. we have heard shri yadav, the learned dr who relied upon the tribunal decision reported in 1996 (85) e.l.t. 80 in the case of mahindra & mahindra v. c.c.c., in which it has been held that cutting oil and quenching oil which are used as lubricants in the manufacture of motor vehicle components are neither raw materials nor components and hence not eligible for the benefit of exemption in terms of notification 201 /79.3. shri kulkarni, learned chartered accountant submits that the expression in rule 57a namely "used in or in relation to the manufacture of" is wider than the language of notification 201/79 and therefore all inputs which are used either directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final product should be held to be eligible for credit.4. we have considered the submissions of both sides and we see force in the submission of the respondent that the tribunal decision relied upon by the learned dr will not be applicable in the present case for the reason that in notification 201/79 which is considered by the tribunal, the expression is used as inputs i.e. raw material or components in the manufacture of finished products while the expression in rule 57a is wider and covers inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. therefore the tribunal's findings in para 6 of the mahindra & mahindra order that cutting oil and quenching oil are not raw material or components will not operate so as to hold that they are not inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of the respondent's final products. the respondent have submitted a write-up explaining the use of quenching oil and cutting oil according to.....

Full Judgment

1. The issue in this appeal relates to denial of credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on cutting oil and quenching oil used for cooling of steel. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the lower appellate authority who has extended the credit of these two items, holding that they are used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product namely forgings by the respondent.

2. We have heard Shri Yadav, the learned DR who relied upon the Tribunal decision reported in 1996 (85) E.L.T. 80 in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra v. C.C.C., in which it has been held that cutting oil and quenching oil which are used as lubricants in the manufacture of motor vehicle components are neither raw materials nor components and hence not eligible for the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification 201 /79.

3. Shri Kulkarni, learned Chartered Accountant submits that the expression in Rule 57A namely "used in or in relation to the manufacture of" is wider than the language of Notification 201/79 and therefore all inputs which are used either directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final product should be held to be eligible for credit.

4. We have considered the submissions of both sides and we see force in the submission of the respondent that the Tribunal decision relied upon by the Learned DR will not be applicable in the present case for the reason that in Notification 201/79 which is considered by the Tribunal, the expression is used as inputs i.e. raw material or components in the manufacture of finished products while the expression in Rule 57A is wider and covers inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. Therefore the Tribunal's findings in para 6 of the Mahindra & Mahindra order that cutting oil and quenching oil are not raw material or components will not operate so as to hold that they are not inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of the respondent's final products. The respondent have submitted a write-up explaining the use of quenching oil and cutting oil according to which, in order to get the required hardening for the forging, the forgings are heated to 700C and then directly quenched/dipped in the quenching oil and the transformation from high temperature to ambient temperature makes the forging quite hard and increases their tensile strength. As far as cutting oil, due to excess heating of accessories during high speed rotation of forgings, there are chances of inserts breaking and getting entrapped into the forgings and therefore in order to maintain the normal temperature, cutting oil is used which is continuously poured on cutting tool or grinding wheel. From the explanation of, usage of these items and having regard to the wider language of Rule 57A we hold that there is no infirmity in the lower authorities order extending credit on these items and uphold the same and reject the appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial