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. Union Quality Plastics Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Union Quality Plastics Pvt. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Apr 09, 2003
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/30591

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 Mumbai
Judge
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

Union Quality Plastics Pvt. Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(2003)(160)ELT1090Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. in the order impugned in this appeal, the commissioner (appeals) has held that the benefit of the exemption provided in entry 19 of the table to the notification 14/92 could not be denied to the respondent before him solely for the reason that modvat credit had been taken on the duty paid on the inputs out of which scrap was manufactured. he noted that the entry provided exemption to waste and scrap of plastic specified therein provided that it arose from the goods on which duty of excise or additional duty of customs have already been paid. in the absence of any condition in the entry, that modvat credit could not have been availed of he held this fact would not affect the eligibility of the exemption.2. the appeal is based on a view that since modvat credit was taken of the duty paid on the goods out of which scrap arose, they must be considered to be non-duty paid. such a proposition is clearly unacceptable. the effect of a manufacturer taking credit of the duty paid on any input is not to render it non-duty paid. the duty paid character of such goods does not change only because modvat credit was taken of the duty so paid. the ratio of the judgment of the bombay high court in indoswe engineers private limited v. union of india - 1989 (41) e.l.t. 217 which lays down the same proposition with regard to proforma credit under rule 56a, applies with equal force in the case of modvat credit.

Full Judgment

1. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the benefit of the exemption provided in entry 19 of the Table to the Notification 14/92 could not be denied to the respondent before him solely for the reason that Modvat credit had been taken on the duty paid on the inputs out of which scrap was manufactured. He noted that the entry provided exemption to waste and scrap of plastic specified therein provided that it arose from the goods on which duty of excise or additional duty of customs have already been paid. In the absence of any condition in the entry, that Modvat credit could not have been availed of he held this fact would not affect the eligibility of the exemption.

2. The appeal is based on a view that since Modvat credit was taken of the duty paid on the goods out of which scrap arose, they must be considered to be non-duty paid. Such a proposition is clearly unacceptable. The effect of a manufacturer taking credit of the duty paid on any input is not to render it non-duty paid. The duty paid character of such goods does not change only because Modvat credit was taken of the duty so paid. The ratio of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Indoswe Engineers Private Limited v. Union of India - 1989 (41) E.L.T. 217 which lays down the same proposition with regard to proforma credit under Rule 56A, applies with equal force in the case of Modvat credit.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial