Finolex Cables Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Finolex Cables Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Aug 31, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/25335

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/25335
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Aug 31, 2001
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Finolex Cables Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Excerpt

1. the issue involved in this appeal is the admissibility of modvat credit on (1) fork lift truck and (2) hydrolic mobile crane as capital goods in terms of rule 57q of central excise rules, 1944. the commissioner (appeals) in the impugned order denied the benefit holding that these goods did not contribute to manufacturing or processing of inputs. he also relied upon the judgment of the tribunal in the case of sandvik asia ltd. v. commissioner, pune.2. subsequent to the passing of the judgment, in a number of cases, the tribunal had occasion to examine the admissibility of such goods. fork lift trucks and cranes were held as admissible under rule 57q of cer, 1944 in a number of judgments which were listed and followed by the single member of tribunal in the judgment reported in 2000(123) elt 770(t). the issue being so settled in favour of the assessee, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, as per law.

Full Judgment

1. The issue involved in this appeal is the admissibility of modvat credit on (1) fork lift truck and (2) Hydrolic Mobile Crane as capital goods in terms of Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order denied the benefit holding that these goods did not contribute to manufacturing or processing of inputs. He also relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. Commissioner, Pune.

2. Subsequent to the passing of the judgment, in a number of cases, the Tribunal had occasion to examine the admissibility of such goods. Fork lift trucks and cranes were held as admissible under Rule 57Q of CER, 1944 in a number of judgments which were listed and followed by the Single Member of Tribunal in the judgment reported in 2000(123) ELT 770(T). The issue being so settled in favour of the assessee, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, as per law.

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