Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Rollatainers Ltd.

Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Rollatainers Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Sep 01, 1999

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/16637

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/16637
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Sep 01, 1999
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Respondent

Rollatainers Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (1999)(114)ELT716TriDel

Excerpt

.....that modvat credit is admissible in respect of power cable and hoist under rule 57q ibid, following certain decisions of the tribunal. hence, the present appeal by the revenue.3. the learned jdr, shri y.r. kilania is present for the appellant-revenue. no representation for the respondents inspite of service of notice of hearing.4. the learned jdr submits that the question whether power cable is capital goods for the purpose of modvat benefit under rule 57q ibid stands settled with the decision of the larger bench of the tribunal in the case of jawahar mills limited v. c.c.e., coimbatore [1999 (32) r.l.t 379 (cegat-larger bench)], according to which the said item falls under the category of capital goods for the purpose of rule 57q ibid.the learned jdr fairly concedes that the other item, namely, hoist which falls in the larger category of material-handling equipments would also attract rule 57q as capital goods in the light of the decision of the tribunal in the case of jawahar mills ltd. 5. thus both the items involved in the present appeal having been held to be 'capital goods' under rule 57q of the central excise rules, the re- spondents are entitled to avail themselves of credit of the duty paid on the said goods as capital goods under rule 57q ibid. therefore, the revenue's appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. This is an appeal by the Revenue wherein the issue is whether two items, namely, power cable and hoist are Modvatable as capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 2. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner had adjudicated upon the show cause notice issued to the respondents earlier, holding that the aforesaid goods viz. power cable and hoist were not capital goods for the purposes of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, and had accordingly confirmed the demand of duty raised on the assessee. In the assessee's appeal against the Assistant Commissioner's order, the Commissioner (Appeals), by Order-in-Appeal, dated 29-8-1997, held that Modvat credit is admissible in respect of power cable and hoist under Rule 57Q ibid, following certain decisions of the Tribunal. Hence, the present appeal by the Revenue.

3. The learned JDR, Shri Y.R. Kilania is present for the appellant-Revenue. No representation for the respondents inspite of service of notice of hearing.

4. The learned JDR submits that the question whether power cable is capital goods for the purpose of Modvat benefit under Rule 57Q ibid stands settled with the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of jawahar Mills Limited v. C.C.E., Coimbatore [1999 (32) R.L.T 379 (CEGAT-LARGER BENCH)], according to which the said item falls under the category of capital goods for the purpose of Rule 57Q ibid.

The learned JDR fairly concedes that the other item, namely, hoist which falls in the larger category of material-handling equipments would also attract Rule 57Q as capital goods in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. 5. Thus both the items involved in the present appeal having been held to be 'capital goods' under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, the Re- spondents are entitled to avail themselves of credit of the duty paid on the said goods as capital goods under Rule 57Q ibid. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Rollatainers Ltd. Same Subject Excise