Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shaw Wallace Gelantines Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Shaw Wallace Gelantines Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 20, 2002

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/29403

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/29403
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: Author: P Bajaj
Decided On: Nov 20, 2002
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Shaw Wallace Gelantines Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2003)(86)ECC646

Excerpt

.....i have heard the learned jdr and gone through the record.4. the perusal of the impugned order shows that while allowing modvat credit on the components/spares and accessories used for refrigeration and air-conditioning to the respondents under rule 57q, the commissioner (appeals) has placed reliance on the ratio of law laid down in commissioner of central excise, guntur v. chukapalli automative components p. ltd., 2001 (130) elt 461, wherein it has been observed that spare parts, components and accessories used in machines installed prior to 1.3.94 were eligible for credit. but the commissioner (appeals) has lost sight of the fact that accessories/spares and components of air-conditioning and refrigeration stood excluded from the definition of 'capital goods' under rule 57q during the relevant time when modvat credit was taken by the respondents. therefore, the ratio of the law laid down in the above-said case which was a case of spares of automobiles could not be made applicable to the case of the respondents. the respondents were not entitled to claim modvat credit in respect of components/spares and accessories of air-conditioning in the face of the specific exclusion in respect thereof incorporated in the rule 57q itself at the relevant time. therefore, the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals) cannot be legally sustainable in that regard and deserves to be set aside.5. consequently, the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals) to the extent to which it has been challenged in the present appeal is set aside and the appeal of the revenue is allowed to that extent.

Full Judgment

1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against that part of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 3.6.2002/9.7.2002 vide which he has allowed modvat credit in respect of air-conditioning plant spares/components and accessories under Rule 57Q, to the respondents. The other part of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing modvat credit in respect of other items detailed in that order as well as in the show cause notice, had not been challenged by the Revenue.

3. None has come present on behalf of the respondents. They have only sent Written submissions. I have heard the learned JDR and gone through the record.

4. The perusal of the impugned order shows that while allowing modvat credit on the components/spares and accessories used for refrigeration and air-conditioning to the respondents under Rule 57Q, the Commissioner (Appeals) has placed reliance on the ratio of law laid down in Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur v. Chukapalli Automative Components P. Ltd., 2001 (130) ELT 461, wherein it has been observed that spare parts, components and accessories used in machines installed prior to 1.3.94 were eligible for credit. But the Commissioner (Appeals) has lost sight of the fact that accessories/spares and components of air-conditioning and refrigeration stood excluded from the definition of 'capital goods' under Rule 57Q during the relevant time when modvat credit was taken by the respondents. Therefore, the ratio of the law laid down in the above-said case which was a case of spares of automobiles could not be made applicable to the case of the respondents. The respondents were not entitled to claim modvat credit in respect of components/spares and accessories of air-conditioning in the face of the specific exclusion in respect thereof incorporated in the Rule 57Q itself at the relevant time. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be legally sustainable in that regard and deserves to be set aside.

5. Consequently, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent to which it has been challenged in the present appeal is set aside and the appeal of the Revenue is allowed to that extent.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Shaw Wallace Gelantines Ltd. Same Subject Excise Same Judge Author: P Bajaj