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. Jct Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Jct Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Sep 11, 2000
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/19119

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

Jct Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(2000)(122)ELT166TriDel

Excerpt

1. the two issues that arise for determination in the above appeal of the revenue against the order of the commissioner (appeals) are : (1) admissibility of clean how and floron gas used in airconditioners to remove fungus and unwanted deposits in airconditioners used to maintain the temperature in the filament yarn plant of the respondents, to the benefit of modvat credit under rule 57a of the central excise rules, 1944; (2) admissibility of credit of rs. 22,26,571 /- availed on triplicate copy of bill of entry endorsed by the importer in favour of the respondents.2. we have heard both the sides. the dr's contention is that credit on airconditioners is not admissible and therefore, credit on inputs used in the airconditioners is also not admissible. however, in view of the tribunal's decision in the case of commissioner of central excise v.j.k. synthetics reported in [1998 (98) e.l.t. 507] upholding the eligibility of clean flow to modvat credit which is also applicable in the case of floron gas, we see no force in the submission of the revenue and uphold the impunged order on this point.3. credit on triplicate copy of bill of entry entirely endorsed in favour of the respondents is also admissible as held by the tribunal in several orders. we therefore, uphold the commissioner (appeals) order on this point also. in the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal rejected.

Full Judgment

1. The two issues that arise for determination in the above appeal of the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) are : (1) Admissibility of Clean How and Floron Gas used in airconditioners to remove fungus and unwanted deposits in airconditioners used to maintain the temperature in the Filament Yarn plant of the respondents, to the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; (2) Admissibility of credit of Rs. 22,26,571 /- availed on triplicate copy of Bill of Entry endorsed by the importer in favour of the respondents.

2. We have heard both the sides. The DR's contention is that credit on airconditioners is not admissible and therefore, credit on inputs used in the airconditioners is also not admissible. However, in view of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v.J.K. Synthetics reported in [1998 (98) E.L.T. 507] upholding the eligibility of Clean Flow to Modvat credit which is also applicable in the case of Floron gas, we see no force in the submission of the Revenue and uphold the impunged order on this point.

3. Credit on triplicate copy of bill of entry entirely endorsed in favour of the respondents is also admissible as held by the Tribunal in several orders. We therefore, uphold the Commissioner (Appeals) order on this point also. In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal rejected.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial