Nrc Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Nrc Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Apr 27, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/22569

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/22569
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Apr 27, 2001
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

Nrc Limited

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Excerpt

1. the question for consideration in these appeals is the eligibility to rule 57q of tanks which contains liquefied chlorine gas, otherwise known as toners or chlorine containers.2. the order impugned in these appeals the commissioner (appeals) has confirmed the denial by the additional commissioner of the claim of the manufacturer for credit under rule 57q on the ground that these were not covered by the definition of capital goods contained in sub-rule (1) of rule 57q.3. in the decision in cce vs. hukumchand jute industries ltd. 2000 (41) rlt 322 the tribunal has held chlorine cylinders to be capital goods under rule 57q, relying upon an earlier decision of the tribunal which held that cylinders for chlorine liquefied gas and oxygen to be capital goods.4. following the ratio of this decision we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. consequential relief according to law.

Full Judgment

1. The question for consideration in these appeals is the eligibility to Rule 57Q of tanks which contains liquefied chlorine gas, otherwise known as toners or chlorine containers.

2. The order impugned in these appeals the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the denial by the Additional Commissioner of the claim of the manufacturer for credit under Rule 57Q on the ground that these were not covered by the definition of capital goods contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 57Q.3. In the decision in CCE Vs. Hukumchand Jute Industries Ltd. 2000 (41) RLT 322 the Tribunal has held chlorine cylinders to be capital goods under Rule 57Q, relying upon an earlier decision of the Tribunal which held that cylinders for chlorine liquefied gas and oxygen to be capital goods.

4. Following the ratio of this decision we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. Consequential relief according to law.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Nrc Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Same Subject Service Tax