Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Unichem Laboratories Ltd.

Commr. of C. Ex. vs Unichem Laboratories Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Oct 20, 1999

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/17029

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/17029
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Oct 20, 1999
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commr. of C. Ex.

Respondent

Unichem Laboratories Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2000)(116)ELT123TriDel

Excerpt

.....excise (appeals), ghaziabad, observed that the air-conditioners were received prior to 16-3-1995 and as the notification no. 11/95-ce. (n.t.), dated 16-3-1995 had no retrospective effect, and as the furnace oil had been used in the process of manufacture of pp medicines, the benefit of modvat credit with regard to both these items was admissible. with regard to furnace oil, the appellate authority had relied upon the tribunal's decision in the case of andhra pradesh paper mills ltd. v. c.c.e., 1990 (50) e.l.t. 252 (tribunal).2. when the matter was called, no one appeared for the respondents, m/s. unichem laboratories ltd. the notice for today's hearing had been sent to the respondents on 24-9-1999 and a copy of the same had also been endorsed to the counsel on record. on going through the facts on record, we consider that the matter could be disposed of in the absence of the respondents, and we proceed to deal with the matter on merits after hearing shri mewa singh, sdr.3. we find that the air-conditioners were received prior to 16-3-1995 and the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of patent or proprietary medicines. the commissioner of central excise (appeals) had observed that the notification no. 11 /95-c.e. (n.t.), dated 16-3-1995 could not be given retrospective effect.4. with regard to the furnace oil also, he had observed that the furnace oil was used to convert water into steam which was excisable product under chapter 28 of the central excise tariff and the steam had been used thereafter to heat the patent or proprietary medicine - syrups and to serilize the empty ampules of injection. he has also relied upon the tribunal's deci-sion in the case of andhra pradesh paper mills ltd. v. c.c.e., 1990 (50) e.l.t. 252 (tribunal). the tribunal had observed that the expression "in relation to" has to be read in the context of the manufacturing process of the finished goods covered under the modvat scheme and that there may be processes which are.....

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the admissibility of air-conditioners and the furnace oil to the benefit of Modvat credit when the air-conditioners were received prior to 16-3-1995 and when the furnace oil was used to heat the syrup of PP medicines and to sterilise the empty ampules of injections. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad, observed that the air-conditioners were received prior to 16-3-1995 and as the Notification No. 11/95-CE. (N.T.), dated 16-3-1995 had no retrospective effect, and as the furnace oil had been used in the process of manufacture of PP medicines, the benefit of Modvat credit with regard to both these items was admissible. With regard to furnace oil, the appellate authority had relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. v. C.C.E., 1990 (50) E.L.T. 252 (Tribunal).

2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the respondents, M/s. Unichem Laboratories Ltd. The notice for today's hearing had been sent to the respondents on 24-9-1999 and a copy of the same had also been endorsed to the counsel on record. On going through the facts on record, we consider that the matter could be disposed of in the absence of the respondents, and we proceed to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri Mewa Singh, SDR.3. We find that the air-conditioners were received prior to 16-3-1995 and the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Patent or Proprietary Medicines. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had observed that the Notification No. 11 /95-C.E. (N.T.), dated 16-3-1995 could not be given retrospective effect.

4. With regard to the furnace oil also, he had observed that the furnace oil was used to convert water into steam which was excisable product under Chapter 28 of the Central Excise Tariff and the steam had been used thereafter to heat the patent or proprietary medicine - syrups and to serilize the empty ampules of injection. He has also relied upon the Tribunal's deci-sion in the case of Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. v. C.C.E., 1990 (50) E.L.T. 252 (Tribunal). The Tribunal had observed that the expression "in relation to" has to be read in the context of the manufacturing process of the finished goods covered under the Modvat scheme and that there may be processes which are preparatory in nature and anterior to the start of the manufacturing stream of the finished product but which have to be essentially carried out before the actual manufacturing process of the goods can start or these may be related to the preparing of the material which have ultimately to go into the manufacturing stream or in preparing of certain materials which directly or indirectly participate in the manufacturing process in a manner that these help in the process of manufacture to be carried a step further.

5. On going through the impugned order-in-appeal, we do not find any fault with the reasonings given by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad, in coming to a decision that the benefit of Modvat credit was available both to the air-conditioners (they have been received prior to 16-3-1995) and the furnace oil used in relation to the manufacture of patent and proprietary medicine.

6. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is rejected. Ordered accordingly.

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