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.

Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Sep 08, 2003
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/32150

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

Super Cassettes Industries Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In
(2004)(112)LC212Tri(Delhi)

Excerpt

1. in this appeal filed by m/s. super cassettes industries ltd., the issue involved is whether modvat credit of duty paid in respect of uv lamp and fluorescent tubes rule 57q of central excise rules, 1944.2. i heard shri m p dev nath, learned advocate for the appellants, and shri h.c. verma, learned departmental representative for the revenue.it is the contention of the appellants that both uv lamps and fluorescent tubes are used in the printing machines installed in their factory for printing of compact discs; that parts, spares and accessories of capital goods are eligible capital goods for the purpose of availing the modvat credit irrespective of chapter heading in which these goods may fall. the contention of the department, on the other hand, is that heading 85.39 of the schedule to the central excise tariff act is excluded from the definition of the capital goods as given in rule 57q; that these are not parts of any specified machines and are only used in cd plant of the appellants. i agree with the submissions made by the revenue that uv lamp and fluorescent tubes are not parts of any specific machines. as these are classifiable under heading 85.39 which is not mentioned in the table below rule 57q, the benefit of modvat credit is not available to the appellants. as they have wrongly availed the credit, penalty is also imposable on the appellants. i, therefore, find no merit in the appeal which is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., the issue involved is whether MODVAT credit of duty paid in respect of UV lamp and fluorescent tubes Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

2. I heard Shri M P Dev Nath, learned Advocate for the Appellants, and Shri H.C. Verma, learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue.

It is the contention of the Appellants that both UV lamps and fluorescent tubes are used in the printing machines installed in their factory for printing of compact discs; that parts, spares and accessories of capital goods are eligible capital goods for the purpose of availing the MODVAT credit irrespective of Chapter Heading in which these goods may fall. The contention of the Department, on the other hand, is that Heading 85.39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act is excluded from the definition of the capital goods as given in Rule 57Q; that these are not parts of any specified machines and are only used in CD plant of the Appellants. I agree with the submissions made by the Revenue that UV lamp and fluorescent tubes are not parts of any specific machines. As these are classifiable under Heading 85.39 which is not mentioned in the table below Rule 57Q, the benefit of MODVAT credit is not available to the Appellants. As they have wrongly availed the credit, penalty is also imposable on the Appellants. I, therefore, find no merit in the Appeal which is rejected.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial