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. Pittie Cement Industries

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Pittie Cement Industries

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 10, 1999
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/16209

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
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 Central Excise

Respondent

Pittie Cement Industries

Legal References

Reported In
(1999)(112)ELT1050TriDel

Excerpt

.....when the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the respondents, m/s. pittie cement & industries ltd. the registry informed that the notice of hearing sent to them has been received back from postal authority with the remark 'factory locked'. we, therefore, heard shri y.r. kilaniya, learned dr and perused the records.3. shri y.r. kilaniya, learned jdr, submitted that both the assistant commissioner and commissioner (appeals) allowed the capital goods credit on these two goods as these were used as parts of the d.g. set and would be covered by explanation 1(d)(ix) to rule 57q. he mentioned that switch gear/control gear merely regulate the electric current and are not used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final product; that these cannot be called as the component/spare parts of the d.g.set but are installed separately.4. i have considered the submissions of the revenue and perused the records. both the lower authorities have allowed the capital goods credit as they found that these items are parts of the d.g. set. the commissioner (appeals) has held that d.g. sets were specifically covered by explanation 1(d) to rule 57q; that once it is established that they are integral to the d.g. sets, they would get covered under the definition of capital goods. the revenue has now contended that these are installed separately. the revenue has, however, not denied that the impugned goods regulate the flow of electricity and they are used with d.g. sets and as such would be eligible for capital goods credit under explanation 1(d)(ix) to rule 57q(1) of the central excise rules which read as under :- "components, spares and accessories of the goods specified against item (i) to (viii) above." the electric generating set of output exceeding 75 kva was mentioned as item (v). further, the larger bench of the tribunal in jawahar mills case, 1999 (108) e.l.t. 47 (t) considered the.....

Full Judgment

1. The issue involved in this appeal preferred by Revenue is whether switch gear/control gear used as spare parts in D.G. sets are eligible capital goods under Rule 57Q for the purpose of availing capital goods credit.

2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the Respondents, M/s. Pittie Cement & Industries Ltd. The registry informed that the notice of hearing sent to them has been received back from postal authority with the remark 'Factory locked'. We, therefore, heard Shri Y.R. Kilaniya, learned DR and perused the records.

3. Shri Y.R. Kilaniya, learned JDR, submitted that both the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the capital goods credit on these two goods as these were used as parts of the D.G. set and would be covered by Explanation 1(d)(ix) to Rule 57Q. He mentioned that switch gear/control gear merely regulate the electric current and are not used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final product; that these cannot be called as the component/spare parts of the D.G.set but are installed separately.

4. I have considered the submissions of the Revenue and perused the records. Both the lower authorities have allowed the capital goods credit as they found that these items are parts of the D.G. set. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that D.G. sets were specifically covered by Explanation 1(d) to Rule 57Q; that once it is established that they are integral to the D.G. sets, they would get covered under the definition of capital goods. The Revenue has now contended that these are installed separately. The Revenue has, however, not denied that the impugned goods regulate the flow of electricity and they are used with D.G. sets and as such would be eligible for capital goods credit under Explanation 1(d)(ix) to Rule 57Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules which read as under :- "Components, spares and accessories of the goods specified against Item (i) to (viii) above." The electric generating set of output exceeding 75 KVA was mentioned as Item (v). Further, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Jawahar Mills case, 1999 (108) E.L.T. 47 (T) considered the scope of capital goods eligible for capital goods credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal after referring to the Supreme Court's decision in C.C.E. v. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Coop. Ltd. -1996 (86) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.), J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. v. S.T.O. -1997 (91) E.L.T. 34 (S.C.) and Gujarat High Court's decision in Industrial Machinery Manufacturing (P) Ltd., held that "it will not be possible and correct to construe the expression "used for producing of any goods for the manufacture of the final product' as synonymous with 'used for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of the final product...'. The said expression would not, to use the language of the Supreme Court in J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Pvt. Ltd., be limited to ingredients or commodities used in the process or those directly and actually needed for turning out or the creation of the goods." The Tribunal held control panels, cables, welding electrodes, etc., as eligible items for capital goods as these are used for producing or processing of goods. Following the ratio of the decision of the Larger Bench, I hold that switch gear and control gear are eligible capital goods for the purpose of availing the capital goods credit. Accordingly, the appeal filed by Revenue is rejected.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial