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. Century Pulp and Paper

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Century Pulp and Paper

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Aug 04, 1999
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/16382

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
Judge
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

Century Pulp and Paper

Legal References

Reported In
(1999)(66)ECC673

Excerpt

1. m/s. century pulp & paper ltd. nainital have filed three appeals against denial of modvat credit. three appeals have been filed by revenue against the order allowing modvat credit on certain goods treating them as capital goods.2. the facts of the case briefly stated are that m/s. century pulp & paper ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of writing and printing paper. they availed modvat credit of duty paid on a number of items treating them as capital goods. lower authorities allowed modvat credit on some items and denied modvat credit on other items. against allowance of modvat credit on some items treating them as capital goods, revenue has filed the above-mentioned three appeals whereas the assessee has filed three appeals against denial of modvat credit on some items which they have treated as capital goods. as the six appeals arise out of the same impugned order, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.3. shri m.p. devnath, ld. counsel for the assessee and shri h.k.saran, ld. sdr for the revenue submitted that these appeals required examination in detail as to their admissibility for modvat credit as capital goods. both the sides submit that the issue of admissibility of modvat credit on capital goods came up before the larger bench of this tribunal in the case of m/s. jawahar mills . they submit that since the larger branch of this tribunal has considered the issue in detail, the appeals paper may be sent back to them to examine the position and admissibility of modvat credit on the items as capital goods in terms of the findings of the larger bench of this tribunal in the case of jawahar mills ltd. 4. we have heard both the sides. we agree with their contention that now the issue by and large is settled by the decision of the larger bench of this tribunal in the case of jawahar mills ltd. cited above.agreeing with them, we, therefore, remand the case to the authorities below [commissioner (appeals)] for examination.....

Full Judgment

1. M/s. Century Pulp & Paper Ltd. Nainital have filed three appeals against denial of Modvat credit. Three appeals have been filed by Revenue against the order allowing Modvat credit on certain goods treating them as capital goods.

2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that M/s. Century Pulp & Paper Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of writing and printing paper. They availed Modvat credit of duty paid on a number of items treating them as capital goods. Lower authorities allowed Modvat credit on some items and denied Modvat credit on other items. Against allowance of Modvat credit on some items treating them as capital goods, Revenue has filed the above-mentioned three appeals whereas the assessee has filed three appeals against denial of Modvat credit on some items which they have treated as capital goods. As the six appeals arise out of the same impugned order, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. Shri M.P. Devnath, Ld. Counsel for the assessee and Shri H.K.Saran, Ld. SDR for the Revenue submitted that these appeals required examination in detail as to their admissibility for Modvat credit as capital goods. Both the sides submit that the issue of admissibility of Modvat credit on capital goods came up before the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Jawahar Mills . They submit that since the Larger Branch of this Tribunal has considered the issue in detail, the appeals paper may be sent back to them to examine the position and admissibility of Modvat credit on the items as capital goods in terms of the findings of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. 4. We have heard both the sides. We agree with their contention that now the issue by and large is settled by the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. cited above.

Agreeing with them, we, therefore, remand the case to the authorities below [Commissioner (Appeals)] for examination of the case in the light of the above decision and pass appropriate orders after giving the appellants an opportunity of being heard in person. These six appeals are allowed by way of remand.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial