Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Dcl Polyesters Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Dcl Polyesters Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Apr 30, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/30750

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/30750
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: A Wadhwa, S T S.S.
Decided On: Apr 30, 2003
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

Dcl Polyesters Ltd.

Excerpt

.....that all the above items have been considered by the tribunal in various judgments and held to be admissible modvatability capital goods. he places following charts on record:- goods supply of electricity to machines in the plant. 2,97,857/- cce vs. jawajar mills -2001 (132) elt 3 (sc) b) control boards, junction box, electric motors, switches.carry, store, supply electricity for machinery in the plant 2,36,451/- power driven pumps, antri-fufal pumps pumping of raw material eveready indus. india. vs. cc 1997(70)ecr79 eid- parry (i) ltd.vs. cc 2002 (150) elt 765 three m paper mfg. co. vs. cc 1999 (113) elt 226 d) material handling equipment for trans porting intermediate products during manufacture.ifb industries ltd. vs cc 2002 (149) elt 770polyplex corporation ltd. vs cc.total lupin laboratories ltd. vs.cc. 1998 (100) elt 52 3. we have seen the judgment relied upon by the respondents and find that all the items of which the commissioner has allowed modvat credit have been held to be capital goods by the decision referred therein. we also take note of supreme court's decision in the case of jawahar mills ltd. referred supra vide which it was held that the definition of capital goods is quite liberal and the only requirement is that the capital goods should be used in the factory of manufacture.4. we find no reasons to take a different view than the view taken by the various tribunal's decisions in respect of various items as reflected in the above chart. accordingly, we rejected the appeal filed by the revenue.

Full Judgment

1. This is Revenue's appeal against the Order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur vide which he has allowed Modvat credit in respect of some of the capital goods. Vide the same impugned order the Commissioner has also disallowed modvat credit in respect of certain other items. We are informed by the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents that the appeal filed by them against that portion of the order disallowing the modvat credit has since been allowed by the Tribunal. As such we are concerned only with that portion of the order by which the Commissioner has allowed the modvat credit.

2. After hearing Shri S.S. Bhagat, Ld. SDR and Shri J.C. Patel, Ld.

Advocate for the respondents we find that the modvat credit was disallowed in respect of electrical wires and cables, control boards, power driven pumps and trolley wheels. Shri J.C. Patel submits that all the above items have been considered by the Tribunal in various judgments and held to be admissible modvatability capital goods. He places following charts on record:- Goods Supply of electricity to machines in the plant.

2,97,857/- CCE Vs. Jawajar Mills -2001 (132) ELT 3 (SC) b) Control Boards, junction box, electric motors, switches.

carry, store, supply electricity for machinery in the Plant 2,36,451/- Power driven Pumps, antri-Fufal Pumps Pumping of Raw material Eveready Indus. India. Vs. CC 1997(70)ECR79 EID- Parry (I) Ltd.Vs. CC 2002 (150) ELT 765 Three M Paper Mfg. Co. vs. CC 1999 (113) ELT 226 d) Material Handling equipment for trans porting intermediate products during manufacture.IFB Industries Ltd. vs CC 2002 (149) ELT 770Polyplex Corporation Ltd. vs CC.TOTAL Lupin Laboratories Ltd. vs.CC. 1998 (100) ELT 52 3. We have seen the judgment relied upon by the respondents and find that all the items of which the Commissioner has allowed modvat credit have been held to be capital goods by the decision referred therein. We also take note of Supreme Court's decision in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. referred supra vide which it was held that the definition of capital goods is quite liberal and the only requirement is that the capital goods should be used in the factory of manufacture.

4. We find no reasons to take a different view than the view taken by the various Tribunal's decisions in respect of various items as reflected in the above chart. Accordingly, we rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Dcl Polyesters Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge A Wadhwa, S T S.S.