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. Raymond Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Raymond Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jun 10, 1999
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/16016

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
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

Raymond Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(2000)(116)ELT249TriDel

Excerpt

.....assistant manager (excise) appearing on be- 3 half of the respondents submits that the issue involved in this case is covered by the decision of the larger bench in the case of jawahar mills ltd. v. commissioner of central excise, coimbatore, reported in 1999 (32) rlt 379 (cegat-larger bench). he, therefore, prays that the appeal be rejected.4. in this case the benefit of modvat credit in respect of starter coil and coils are allowed by the learned commissioner and in the impugned order learned commissioner held that starter coil and coils are eligible for modvat credit under rule 57q even prior to 16-3-1995 and the contention of the revenue in the appeal is that prior to 16-3-1995 these items are not covered under the definition of capital goods.5. the tribunal in the case of jawahar mills ltd. (supra) relied upon by the respondents held that the definition of capital goods under rule 57q includes machines, plants, tools and appliances used for producing or processing any goods for manufacture of final product even prior to notification no. 11/95-c.e., dated 16-3-1995 and notification no.14/96-c.e., dated 23-7-1996. in view of the decisions of the tribunal, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. the appeal is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 25/26-8-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).

The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that starter coil and coils are eligible for the benefit of Modvat credit as capital goods even prior to 16-3-1995.

2. Learned DR appeared on behalf of the Revenue submits that starter coil and coils are the part of electrical transformers and at the relevant time Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules does not cover these items. Therefore, these are not entitled for the benefit of Modvat credit. He submits that the definition of capital goods were expanded by Notification No. 11/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995 and by Notification No.14/96-C.E., dated 23-7-1996. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed.

3. Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Assistant Manager (Excise) appearing on be- 3 half of the respondents submits that the issue involved in this case is covered by the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore, reported in 1999 (32) RLT 379 (CEGAT-Larger Bench). He, therefore, prays that the appeal be rejected.

4. In this case the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of starter coil and coils are allowed by the learned Commissioner and in the impugned order learned Commissioner held that starter coil and coils are eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q even prior to 16-3-1995 and the contention of the Revenue in the appeal is that prior to 16-3-1995 these items are not covered under the definition of capital goods.

5. The Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the respondents held that the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q includes machines, plants, tools and appliances used for producing or processing any goods for manufacture of final product even prior to Notification No. 11/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995 and Notification No.14/96-C.E., dated 23-7-1996. In view of the decisions of the Tribunal, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is rejected.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial