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.

M/S. Flex Industries and Flex Vs. C.C.E. Meerut

M/S. Flex Industries and Flex vs C.C.E. Meerut

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided May 03, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/22752

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
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M/S. Flex Industries and Flex

Respondent

C.C.E. Meerut

Excerpt

1. the above three appeals involve the common issue of admissibility of modvat credit under rule 57q of the central excise rules and hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. m/s flex industries ltd. are manufacturers of plastic film falling under chapter heading 3920.31. credit has been denied by them on items such as material handling equipments, lightning arrester, g.i. steel structure, g.i. steel rods on the ground that these items are not covered by the definition of capital goods under rule 57q.3. m/s flex engineering ltd are the manufacturers of various types of packaging machines etc. modvat credit has been disallowed to them on items such as electric fans, shapes and sections, copper sheets, industrial wet/dry vacuum cleaner, eps sheets etc. on the ground that these are not covered within the definition of capital goods under rule 57q of the central excise rules. in appeal no. e/3046 credit of rs. 1,50,856/- has also been denied on lifting has also been denied - denial is on the ground that duty paying documents are not in the name of the appellants.4. on hearing both sides, i note that most of the items have already been held up to be eligible to modvat credit as capital goods. ld. c.a.has cited several decisions before me. he also submitted that invoice of lifting machines clearly show that the goods were meant for the appellants, although there are marked to m/s bharat bijlee, as the invoice show that it is care of the appellant.5. however, there is dispute regarding use of nature of some of these items and further since there is no finding by the adjudicating authority specifically on some of the items and further noting that impugned orders in all the three cases do not deal in detail about all the itmes in dispute. i accept the plea of ld. dr for remand of the case.6. (sic) therefore, set aside the impugned orders and (sic) commissioner for fresh decision on each and every disputed item in accordance with law. he shall pass fresh.....

Full Judgment

1. The above three appeals involve the common issue of admissibility of modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules and hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. M/s Flex Industries Ltd. are manufacturers of Plastic film falling under chapter heading 3920.31. Credit has been denied by them on items such as material handling equipments, Lightning Arrester, G.I. Steel Structure, G.I. Steel Rods on the ground that these items are not covered by the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q.3. M/s Flex Engineering Ltd are the manufacturers of various types of packaging machines etc. Modvat credit has been disallowed to them on items such as electric fans, Shapes and Sections, Copper Sheets, Industrial wet/Dry vacuum cleaner, EPS Sheets etc. on the ground that these are not covered within the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. In appeal No. E/3046 credit of Rs. 1,50,856/- has also been denied on lifting has also been denied - denial is on the ground that duty paying documents are not in the name of the appellants.

4. On hearing both sides, I note that most of the items have already been held up to be eligible to modvat credit as capital goods. Ld. C.A.has cited several decisions before me. He also submitted that invoice of lifting machines clearly show that the goods were meant for the appellants, although there are marked to M/s Bharat Bijlee, as the invoice show that it is care of the appellant.

5. However, there is dispute regarding use of nature of some of these items and further since there is no finding by the adjudicating authority specifically on some of the items and further noting that impugned orders in all the three cases do not deal in detail about all the itmes in dispute. I accept the plea of ld. DR for remand of the case.

6. (sic) therefore, set aside the impugned orders and (sic) Commissioner for fresh decision on each and every disputed item in accordance with law. He shall pass fresh orders after extending a reasonable opportunity to the appellants and being heard in their defence.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial