Cce Vs. Ran Chemiclas Pvt. Ltd.

Cce vs Ran Chemiclas Pvt. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 10, 2003

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/32200

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/32200
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T S.S.
Decided On: Sep 10, 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

Cce

Respondent

Ran Chemiclas Pvt. Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(112)LC804Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the issue relates the eligibility of modvat credit on capital goods i.e. 'transforms'.2. the issue is now well settled. the word "plant" used in the definition of capital under rule 57-q cannot be construed in a limited fashion in view of the tribunal's decision in the case of valley abrasives ltd. v. cce . the department's objection that the transformers will not be a part of plant as they are used only to regularize electrical flow and do not take part in produce and processing the goods is negated by the decisions in the case of cce v.seshasayee, paper & boards ltd. , the departments contention that the transformer was received prior to amendment of rule 57q w.e.f 16.3.1995 cannot be upheld in view of the decision in the case of nova udyog ltd. 1996 (88) elt and cce v. r.k. marbles ltd. wherein the issue was specifically as regards the eligibility of credit on transformers. in this view of the matter since no merits are found in the appeal filed by the revenue, the said appeal is therefore dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. The issue relates the eligibility of modvat credit on capital goods i.e. 'Transforms'.

2. The issue is now well settled. The word "plant" used in the definition of capital under Rule 57-Q cannot be construed in a limited fashion in view of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Valley Abrasives Ltd. v. CCE . The department's objection that the transformers will not be a part of plant as they are used only to regularize electrical flow and do not take part in produce and processing the goods is negated by the decisions in the case of CCE v.Seshasayee, Paper & Boards Ltd. , the departments contention that the transformer was received prior to amendment of Rule 57Q w.e.f 16.3.1995 cannot be upheld in view of the decision in the case of Nova Udyog Ltd. 1996 (88) ELT and CCE v. R.K. Marbles Ltd. wherein the issue was specifically as regards the eligibility of credit on transformers. In this view of the matter since no merits are found in the appeal filed by the Revenue, the said appeal is therefore dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Cce vs Ran Chemiclas Pvt. Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S T S.S.