Commissioner, Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Keshari Steels

Commissioner, Central Excise, vs M/S. Keshari Steels

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided May 22, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/23232

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/23232
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: Author: S Kang
Decided On: May 22, 2001
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner, Central Excise,

Respondent

M/S. Keshari Steels

Excerpt

1. when the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents inspite of notice, therefore, the appeal is being taken up in absence of respondents.2. revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals) whereby the benefit of modvat credit on foundary fluxes was allowed as input under rule 57 of the central excise rules.4. the contention of the revenue is that foundary fluxes are used as linear in a furnace to avoid direct contact of the steel with refractory. therefore, these are now inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product.5. now this issue is settled by the decision of the hon'ble karnataka high court escorts ltd. vs. collector of central excise, bangalore, reported in 2000 (120) e.l.t. 75 (kar.). in this case the hon'ble high court held that ramming mass used as insluative in the furnace used for melting the aluminium is an input under rule 57a of the central excise rules. in view of the above decision, i find no infirmity in the impugned order, the appeal is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents inspite of notice, therefore, the appeal is being taken up in absence of respondents.

2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of MODVAT credit on Foundary Fluxes was allowed as input under Rule 57 of the Central Excise Rules.

4. The contention of the Revenue is that foundary Fluxes are used as linear in a furnace to avoid direct contact of the steel with refractory. Therefore, these are now inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product.

5. Now this issue is settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court Escorts Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 75 (Kar.). In this case the Hon'ble High Court held that Ramming mass used as insluative in the furnace used for melting the aluminium is an input under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. In view of the above decision, I find no infirmity in the impugned order, the appeal is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner, Central Excise, vs M/S. Keshari Steels Same Subject Excise Same Judge Author: S Kang