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. Indore Steel and Iron Mills Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs indore Steel and Iron Mills Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 28, 2003
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/31729

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 Delhi
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

indore Steel and Iron Mills Ltd.

Excerpt

1. the revenue has filed the above captioned appeals against the common order-in-appeal dated 21.2.2003 vide which the commissioner (appeals) has reversed the order-in-original and allowed modvat credit on furnace oil used as fuel by the respondents in respect of dutiable as well as non-dutiable varieties of wire rods manufactured by them.2. the issue whether the modvat credit could be availed by the respondents on the furnace oil used as fuel by them in respect of dutiable/non-dutiable goods (wire rods) manufactured by them already stands decided in their own earlier case by the tribunal vide final order no.a/176/02-nb(sm) dated 4.2.2002. the tribunal had allowed them the modvat credit in these circumstances. the argument of the learned sdr that the said final order in the respondents' own case passed by the tribunal earlier had not been accepted by the department and they had challenged it by making a reference application to the hon'ble high court of madhya pradesh. but so far the operation of the said order has neither been stayed nor the order itself been altered or reversed by the high court. therefore, the said order is binding on the department.the learned sdr has tried to contest the correctness of the order before me on merits. but the correctness of the said order cannot be questioned by the revenue in the present appeal and this bench cannot sit over the judgment on the said order having been passed by the competent bench of the tribunal. the commissioner (appeals) has rightly followed the said order and allowed modvat credit to the respondents for the disputed period of the amounts in question. the order passed by him is perfectly valid and the same is upheld. both the appeals of the revenue, being without merits, are dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. The Revenue has filed the above captioned appeals against the common order-in-appeal dated 21.2.2003 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original and allowed modvat credit on furnace oil used as fuel by the respondents in respect of dutiable as well as non-dutiable varieties of wire rods manufactured by them.

2. The issue whether the modvat credit could be availed by the respondents on the furnace oil used as fuel by them in respect of dutiable/non-dutiable goods (wire rods) manufactured by them already stands decided in their own earlier case by the Tribunal vide Final Order No.A/176/02-NB(SM) dated 4.2.2002. The Tribunal had allowed them the modvat credit in these circumstances. The argument of the learned SDR that the said Final Order in the respondents' own case passed by the Tribunal earlier had not been accepted by the Department and they had challenged it by making a reference application to the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. But so far the operation of the said order has neither been stayed nor the order itself been altered or reversed by the High Court. Therefore, the said order is binding on the Department.

The learned SDR has tried to contest the correctness of the order before me on merits. But the correctness of the said order cannot be questioned by the Revenue in the present appeal and this Bench cannot sit over the judgment on the said order having been passed by the Competent Bench of the Tribunal. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly followed the said order and allowed modvat credit to the respondents for the disputed period of the amounts in question. The order passed by him is perfectly valid and the same is upheld. Both the appeals of the Revenue, being without merits, are dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial