Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Pratap Steel Rolling Mills

Cce, Chandigarh vs M/S. Pratap Steel Rolling Mills

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided May 04, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/22808

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/22808
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: May 04, 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

Cce, Chandigarh

Respondent

M/S. Pratap Steel Rolling Mills

Excerpt

.....clause (i) in a general sense. if their constituents are taken as inputs where the plant and machine is not, then the exclusion clause will be superfluous and meaningless".2. in this appeal filed by the revenue, the inputs were ramming mass and fire clay refractories. the commissioner of cental excise (appeals) following the tribunal's decision in the case of m/s. a.b. tools ltd.- 1994 (1) rlt 474 (tribunal) had allowed the modvat credit with regard to ramming mass. as regards the fire clay refractories, he had allowed the modvat credited subject to the verification that such refractories had actually been put to use in the maintenance of furnace in the form of powder of fire clay or chemicals and not in the form of bricks or blocks i.e. as a constructional material. following the decisions of the calcutta high court, karnataka high court and that of tribunal, the tribunal had referred to para-4 of the order dated 3.8.98. the tribunal has rejected the appeal filed by the revenue.3. after hearing both the sides, i consider that the matter has already been settled by the decisions referred to above. i may also refer to the karnataka high court decision in the case of escorts ltd. vs.cce,bangalore-2000 (120) elt 75 (karnataka), wherein the high court while disposing of the reference by the tribunal had held that the ramming mass and fibre glass filter mesh being chemical and resins were eligible for credit. (refer paras 6 and 7 of the said order).4. in view of the settled position of law, i do not consider that the reference is required to be made. the reference application filed by the revenue is dismissed. ordered accordingly.

Full Judgment

1. The Revenue has prayed that the following questions of law arising out of the Final Order No./A/946-948/98-NB (SM) dated 3.8.1998 be referred to the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court:- "Whether Ramming Mass, Refractory motors and Fire Clay Refractories declared as inputs under Rule 57-A covered int eh excluded category of items in terms of explanation to Rule 57A could be legally eligible for the benefit of modvat.

The terms machine, machinery, plant, etc. have been use in exclusion clause (i) in a general sense. If their constituents are taken as inputs where the plant and machine is not, then the exclusion clause will be superfluous and meaningless".

2. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the inputs were ramming mass and Fire Clay Refractories. The Commissioner of Cental Excise (Appeals) following the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. A.B. Tools Ltd.- 1994 (1) RLT 474 (Tribunal) had allowed the modvat credit with regard to ramming mass. As regards the Fire Clay Refractories, he had allowed the modvat credited subject to the verification that such refractories had actually been put to use in the maintenance of furnace in the form of powder of fire clay or chemicals and not in the form of bricks or blocks i.e. as a constructional material. Following the decisions of the Calcutta High Court, Karnataka High Court and that of Tribunal, the Tribunal had referred to para-4 of the Order dated 3.8.98. The Tribunal has rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue.

3. After hearing both the sides, I consider that the matter has already been settled by the decisions referred to above. I may also refer to the Karnataka High Court decision in the case of Escorts Ltd. Vs.

CCE,Bangalore-2000 (120) ELT 75 (Karnataka), wherein the High Court while disposing of the reference by the Tribunal had held that the ramming mass and fibre glass filter mesh being chemical and resins were eligible for credit. (refer paras 6 and 7 of the said order).

4. In view of the settled position of law, I do not consider that the reference is required to be made. The Reference Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Ordered accordingly.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Cce, Chandigarh vs M/S. Pratap Steel Rolling Mills Same Subject Service Tax