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. Avi Photochem Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Avi Photochem Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 05, 2000
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/17426

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 Mumbai
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

Avi Photochem Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(2001)(130)ELT947Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. i have heard both sides. the bench in its order had held that since the densitometer in question was an essential requirement for manufacture of finished goods in the appellants' plant, it can legitimately considered to be an input and hence modvat credit would be available of the duty paid input.2. it cannot be in dispute that by use of this product no change is brought about in any substance. hence the question arises whether such products, which are not by themselves directly used to produce substances, but without which the production of goods in a factory is impossible are within the meaning of rule 57q. therefore i propose to refer the question as framed whether densitometer and similar goods which by themselves do not directly produce or process any goods or bring about change in any substance but without which, the production or processing or bringing about change in the substance cannot take place is capital goods within the meaning of rule 57q. the registry may draw up statement or fact for reference to the high court.

Full Judgment

1. I have heard both sides. The Bench in its order had held that since the densitometer in question was an essential requirement for manufacture of finished goods in the appellants' plant, it can legitimately considered to be an input and hence Modvat credit would be available of the duty paid input.

2. It cannot be in dispute that by use of this product no change is brought about in any substance. Hence the question arises whether such products, which are not by themselves directly used to produce substances, but without which the production of goods in a factory is impossible are within the meaning of Rule 57Q. Therefore I propose to refer the question as framed whether densitometer and similar goods which by themselves do not directly produce or process any goods or bring about change in any substance but without which, the production or processing or bringing about change in the substance cannot take place is capital goods within the meaning of Rule 57Q. The registry may draw up statement or fact for reference to the High Court.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial