Amrit Steels Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Amrit Steels vs Commissioner of C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Sep 15, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/19145

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/19145
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Sep 15, 2000
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Amrit Steels

Respondent

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Legal References

Reported In: (2001)(130)ELT674TriDel

Excerpt

.....when there are contrary decisions on similar issue by cegat, especially when one of the same was followed by the appellate authority. 2. whether the decision of cegat deciding that the lubricating oil is not used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product, is legally correct without discussing the use of the said item or its importance in the manufacture of respective final product? 2. the brief facts leading up to the filing of the application are that the assessees availed modvat credit during the period april to october, 1995 on lubricating oil used for the purpose of lubrication of various machinery items and parts including generating sets. credit was disallowed by the assistant commissioner on the ground that it is not an input used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products as required under rule 57a of the central excise rules. the commissioner (appeals) held that credit was admissible following the ratio of the tribunal's decision in the case of pragati paper mills (order no.1403/96-nb, dated 2-5-1996) 1996 (88) e.l.t. 137 (tribunal). the revenue filed an appeal to the tribunal which followed its earlier order in the case of kanoria sugar and general mills ltd. v. collector of central excise, allahabad reported in 1996 (87) e.l.t. 522 in which it was held that lubricants and greases used for better operation of the machinery are not eligible inputs in terms of rule 57a. accordingly the appeal of the revenue was allowed.3. the contention of the assessee/applicant is that the question as to whether lubricating oil is an input admissible to modvat credit under rule 57a is a question of law and, therefore, prays that the question framed may be referred to the hon'ble allahabad high court.4. i see force in the submissions of the applicants particularly noting that the larger bench of the tribunal was held in the case of cce, meerut v. modi rubber ltd. 2000 (119) e.l.t. 197 (t-lb)=2000 (38) rlt 718 that the lubricating oils are.....

Full Judgment

1. The assessees/applicants seek reference of the following questions of law purported to have arisen out of Tribunal's Final Order No.A/803/97-NB (SM), dated 15-9-2000 : 1. Whether the orders of CEGAT in the instant case would be a valid decision when there are contrary decisions on similar issue by CEGAT, especially when one of the same was followed by the appellate authority.

2. Whether the decision of CEGAT deciding that the lubricating oil is not used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product, is legally correct without discussing the use of the said item or its importance in the manufacture of respective final product? 2. The brief facts leading up to the filing of the application are that the assessees availed Modvat credit during the period April to October, 1995 on lubricating oil used for the purpose of lubrication of various machinery items and parts including generating sets. Credit was disallowed by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that it is not an input used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products as required under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that credit was admissible following the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Pragati Paper Mills (Order No.1403/96-NB, dated 2-5-1996) 1996 (88) E.L.T. 137 (Tribunal). The Revenue filed an appeal to the Tribunal which followed its earlier order in the case of Kanoria Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 522 in which it was held that lubricants and greases used for better operation of the machinery are not eligible inputs in terms of Rule 57A. Accordingly the appeal of the Revenue was allowed.

3. The contention of the assessee/applicant is that the question as to whether lubricating oil is an input admissible to Modvat credit under Rule 57A is a question of law and, therefore, prays that the question framed may be referred to the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court.

4. I see force in the submissions of the applicants particularly noting that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal was held in the case of CCE, Meerut v. Modi Rubber Ltd. 2000 (119) E.L.T. 197 (T-LB)=2000 (38) RLT 718 that the lubricating oils are eligible inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. Since a question of law arises on which there is no pronouncement by any superior forum, I refer the following question of law to the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court for its considered opinion : "Whether Modvat credit is admissible in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules on lubricating oil."

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