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.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Vardhman Polytex Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise, vs M/S. Vardhman Polytex Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided May 25, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/23342

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
Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Respondent

M/S. Vardhman Polytex Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(2001)(133)ELT446TriDel

Excerpt

1. the revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals). in the impugned order the penalty on modvat credit as capital goods in respect of bus duct and distribution boards are allowed.3. the contention of the revenue is that these are not capital goods as these are not covered by the definition of capital goods. these items are not used for producing or processing of any gods or bringing of any change in any substance for the manufacture of the final product.3. the assistant commissioner in the adjudication order specifically found that the bus duct are spare parts of transformer and the transformer is an integral part of plant. this factual aspect is not controverted by the revenue. as these are parts of plants, therefore, these are entitled for the benefit of modvat credit.4. in respect of distribution boards and penals adjudicating authority gave a finding that these are used for regular electric supply to the machines which are used in the manufacture of final product and these are essential for the working of the machines. this finding of fact is also not controverted by the revenue. as these boards used with the machines are entitled for the benefit of the modvat credit. in view of the above discussion, i find no infirmity in the impugned order. the appeal is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order the penalty on MODVAT credit as capital goods in respect of Bus duct and Distribution Boards are allowed.

3. The contention of the Revenue is that these are not capital goods as these are not covered by the definition of capital goods. These items are not used for producing or processing of any gods or bringing of any change in any substance for the manufacture of the final product.

3. The Assistant Commissioner in the adjudication order specifically found that the Bus duct are spare parts of Transformer and the Transformer is an integral part of Plant. This factual aspect is not controverted by the Revenue. As these are parts of plants, therefore, these are entitled for the benefit of MODVAT credit.

4. In respect of Distribution boards and penals adjudicating authority gave a finding that these are used for regular electric supply to the machines which are used in the manufacture of final product and these are essential for the working of the machines. This finding of fact is also not controverted by the Revenue. As these boards used with the machines are entitled for the benefit of the MODVAT credit. In view of the above discussion, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is rejected.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial