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. Modern Threads (i) Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Modern Threads (i) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Aug 26, 1999
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/16597

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

Modern Threads (i) Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(1999)(114)ELT358TriDel

Excerpt

.....reference to high court regarding modvatability on 'wires and cables'.he also submits that in the case of southern iron & steel co. v. c.c.e.coimbatore, this tribunal has not allowed the credit on insulated cables and electrical distribution panels. he, therefore, prays that the appeal may be allowed.2. shri jitendra singh, ld. counsel submits that pcb cords, electronic regulator & pvc flexible cables are used for supply of power from main panel to distribution board and for power connection and controlling the power. thus, these are used in the process of manufacture under rule 57q, as it was before 23-7-1996.3. he submits that these items are electrical equipments and that the question of admissibility of modvat credit under rule 57q among other items in the case of electrical apparatus came before the larger bench of this tribunal in the case of jawahar mills ltd. reported in 1999 (108) e.l.t. 47. he, therefore, submits that modvat credit as 'capital goods' has rightly been allowed by the commissioner (appeals) and prays that the appeal may be rejected.4. on careful consideration of the submissions and the use of the items as also the case law cited by both sides, i find that the goods are electrical equipment and apparatus. i also find that similar items came up for consideration before the larger bench of this tribunal in the case of jawahar mills ltd. cited above, i find that there is a categorical findings of the tribunal that these items are 'capital goods'. following the ratio of the decision, i hold that these items are 'capital goods'. in this view of the matter, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. Revenue has disputed the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), in which the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed Modvat credit as 'capital goods' on (i) PCB Cords and (ii) Electronic Regulator & PVC Flexible Cables. Shri Y.R. Kilania, ld. DR submits that Modvat credit on PCB Cords and Electronic Regulator & PVC Flexible Cables is not admissible in view of CEGAT decision in the case of J.K. Pharmachem Ltd. v. C.C.E.reported in 1997 (21) RLT 868. He also submits that even in the case of Nova Udyog v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, the Tribunal allowed reference to High Court regarding modvatability on 'Wires and Cables'.

He also submits that in the case of Southern Iron & Steel Co. v. C.C.E.Coimbatore, this Tribunal has not allowed the credit on insulated cables and Electrical distribution panels. He, therefore, prays that the Appeal may be allowed.

2. Shri Jitendra Singh, ld. Counsel submits that PCB Cords, Electronic Regulator & PVC Flexible Cables are used for supply of power from main panel to distribution board and for power connection and controlling the power. Thus, these are used in the process of manufacture under Rule 57Q, as it was before 23-7-1996.

3. He submits that these items are Electrical equipments and that the question of admissibility of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q among other items in the case of Electrical apparatus came before the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 47. He, therefore, submits that Modvat credit as 'capital goods' has rightly been allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and prays that the Appeal may be rejected.

4. On careful consideration of the submissions and the use of the items as also the case law cited by both sides, I find that the goods are Electrical equipment and apparatus. I also find that similar items came up for consideration before the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. cited above, I find that there is a categorical findings of the Tribunal that these items are 'capital goods'. Following the ratio of the decision, I hold that these items are 'capital goods'. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is upheld and the Appeal is rejected.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial