Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S Surat Beverages P. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise, vs M/S Surat Beverages P. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jul 05, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/24311

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/24311
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Jul 05, 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

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Respondent

M/S Surat Beverages P. Ltd.

Excerpt

.....that the credit of duty taken on the glass bottles lying in stock on that date was required to be reversed on the ground that glass bottles being durable and returnable in nature the value thereof was not included in computing the assessable value of the aerated waters.it was also held that the rental charges paid by the manufacturers for carrying crates was addable to the assessable value. the astt.commissioner confirmed the dues on these grounds. the commissioner(appeals) reversed in decision. hence, the present appeal from revenue. the issue whether in similiar circumstances the credit not utilised was reversible or not, does not seem to have come for consideration. we have seen the judgement of the kerala high court in the case of cce & e, cochin vs. premier tyres ltd. [2001(130) elt 417 (ker.) in the judgement it was held that where final products were dutiable when the credit was taken, and where later on the final products were exempted from duty, there was no cause for reversal of the balance of modvat credit. the situation covered in this judgement was different from the present case. but the ratio of this judgement would apply. the revenue in claiming that the commissioner had not relied on any judgement has also failed in their argument to place any judgment supporting their claim. on the basis of this judgement we uphold the commissioner's finding.2. as regards the inclusion of rental charges, we have substantial case law deriving its origin from the supreme court judgement in the case of cc vs indian oxygen [1988 (36)elt 730 (s.c). in the case specifically of rental of crates used for aerated waters, the tribunal's judgement in the case of vishal beverages (p) ltd. & ors [1999(34)rlt 715(cegat) applies to t he present case. on these grounds, we uphold the orders of the commissioner to the effect that such rental charges are not includable in the assessable value.

Full Judgment

1. The respondents manufactured aerated waters, packed in glass bottles. Credit of duty paid on such bottles was taken by them.

Initially. aerated waters were subjected to specific rate of duty. From 1.3.94, the specific rates were changed to and valoram rates. The view was held that the credit of duty taken on the glass bottles lying in stock on that date was required to be reversed on the ground that glass bottles being durable and returnable in nature the value thereof was not included in computing the assessable value of the aerated waters.

It was also held that the rental charges paid by the manufacturers for carrying crates was addable to the assessable value. The Astt.

Commissioner confirmed the dues on these grounds. The Commissioner(appeals) reversed in decision. Hence, the present appeal from Revenue. The issue whether in similiar circumstances the credit not utilised was reversible or not, does not seem to have come for consideration. We have seen the judgement of the Kerala High Court in the case of CCE & E, Cochin vs. Premier Tyres Ltd. [2001(130) ELT 417 (Ker.) In the judgement it was held that where final products were dutiable when the credit was taken, and where later on the final products were exempted from duty, there was no cause for reversal of the balance of modvat credit. The situation covered in this judgement was different from the present case. But the ratio of this judgement would apply. The Revenue in claiming that the Commissioner had not relied on any judgement has also failed in their argument to place any judgment supporting their claim. On the basis of this judgement we uphold the Commissioner's finding.

2. As regards the inclusion of rental charges, we have substantial case law deriving its origin from the Supreme Court judgement in the case of CC vs Indian Oxygen [1988 (36)ELT 730 (S.C). In the case specifically of rental of crates used for aerated waters, the Tribunal's judgement in the case of Vishal Beverages (P) Ltd. & Ors [1999(34)RLT 715(CEGAT) applies to t he present case. On these grounds, we uphold the orders of the Commissioner to the effect that such rental charges are not includable in the assessable value.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise, vs M/S Surat Beverages P. Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax