Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise, vs Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Aug 30, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/25295

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/25295
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Aug 30, 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

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.

Excerpt

.....15/04/1996. against this order the revenue have filed the present appeal.2. the same assessee was using pens for colour coding of the various components to ensure that the correct components went into the correct final product. the assistant collector denied credit taken on such pens. the commissioner(appeals) vide his order no. pks-40/b.ii/96 dated 15/04/1996 allowed the assessee's appeal. he held that pens used for such marking were in fact used in relation to the manufacture of the final products. in holding so he upon the tribunals' order in the case of cce vs. sterlite industries ltd. 1994 (55) ecr 149. against this order the revenue filed an appeal.3. both the appeals were filed on the same day, namely 26/07/1996. in both appeals i find that appeal memorandum are connected to the wrong orders. this is a clerical error not having any bearing on the result of the appeals. to this both sides are in agreement.4. shri n.v. patil, appearing the for the respondent, shows me a copy of he order no. 45/93/wrb dated 04/02/1993 in which under similar circumstances, in the case of the same assessee, the chemicals used for phosphate coating were held as eligible inputs. the revenue's appeal on this ground therefore does not succeed.5. as regards the pens used for marking of inputs the revenue have tried to distinguish the reliance placed by the commissioner (appeals) on the supreme court judgement in the case of ballarpur industries ltd 1989 (43) elt 804 without any argument being advanced on the other citations made by him. it is correct that int he absence of marking of the proper inputs the manufacture would not be able to manufacture final products. such pens are therefore eligible modvat able inputs.the second appeal filed by the revenue also therefore does not succeed.

Full Judgment

1. The assessee manufactures tractors. Certain chemicals used for the purpose of phosphating and also for the surface treatment before phosphating were held inadmissible for the purpose of modvat credit by the Assistant Collector. In appeal, relying upon the Tribunal judgement in the case of Wheels India Ltd. Vs. CCE 1994 (51) ECR 301, the Commissioner (Appeals) held such inputs a admissible vide his order No.PKS-41/B.II/96 dated 15/04/1996. Against this order the Revenue have filed the present appeal.

2. The same assessee was using pens for colour coding of the various components to ensure that the correct components went into the correct final product. The Assistant Collector denied credit taken on such pens. The Commissioner(Appeals) vide his order No. PKS-40/B.II/96 dated 15/04/1996 allowed the assessee's appeal. He held that pens used for such marking were in fact used in relation to the manufacture of the final products. In holding so he upon the Tribunals' order in the case of CCE Vs. Sterlite Industries Ltd. 1994 (55) ECR 149. Against this order the Revenue filed an appeal.

3. Both the appeals were filed on the same day, namely 26/07/1996. In both appeals I find that appeal memorandum are connected to the wrong orders. This is a clerical error not having any bearing on the result of the appeals. To this both sides are in agreement.

4. Shri N.V. Patil, appearing the for the respondent, shows me a copy of he order No. 45/93/WRB dated 04/02/1993 in which under similar circumstances, in the case of the same assessee, the chemicals used for phosphate coating were held as eligible inputs. The Revenue's appeal on this ground therefore does not succeed.

5. As regards the pens used for marking of inputs the Revenue have tried to distinguish the reliance placed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd 1989 (43) ELT 804 without any argument being advanced on the other citations made by him. It is correct that int he absence of marking of the proper inputs the manufacture would not be able to manufacture final products. Such pens are therefore eligible modvat able inputs.

The second appeal filed by the Revenue also therefore does not succeed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise, vs Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax