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.

Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Cce

Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 30, 2003
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/32483

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

Bajaj Auto Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In
(2003)(111)LC157Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. aggrieved by the order of commissioner (appeals) denying therein capital goods credit under rule 57q on: i) environmental test chamber required for carrying out various test on parts/components/products as per national./international specification to ensure the quality. ii) housing plunger, which is a part of forklifts truck used for material handling.on the grounds that the item at section no. (i) supra and the forklift are not articles used in or in relation to the manufacture/production and processing of any goods or bringing about any deny in any substance for the manufacture of the same products.2. i find there is force in the submission of the appellants that it is for the user to determine whether an item qualifies or not the requirements of clause (2). explanation i to rule 57q as held by the apex court the case of ccb, coimbatore v. jawahar mills ltd. and ors.2001 (45) rlt 739 (sc) wherein in para 6 it has been held: we have no difficulty in accepting the contention of the learned additional solicitor general that, under these circumstances user will determine whether on item qualifies or not the requirement of clause (a).following the same, the credit in this case cannot be denied. moreover, testing equipment and material handling equipment have been held to be eligible capital goods by this tribunal.3.in view of the above this appeal is allowed after setting aside the order.

Full Judgment

1. Aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals) denying therein capital goods credit under Rule 57Q on: i) Environmental Test Chamber required for carrying out various test on parts/components/products as per national./international specification to ensure the quality.

ii) Housing Plunger, which is a part of forklifts truck used for material handling.

On the grounds that the item at Section No. (i) supra and the forklift are not articles used in or in relation to the manufacture/production and processing of any goods or bringing about any deny in any substance for the manufacture of the same products.

2. I find there is force in the submission of the appellants that it is for the user to determine whether an item qualifies or not the requirements of Clause (2). Explanation I to Rule 57Q as held by the Apex Court the case of CCB, Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. and Ors.

2001 (45) RLT 739 (SC) wherein in para 6 it has been held: We have no difficulty in accepting the contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General that, under these circumstances user will determine whether on item qualifies or not the requirement of Clause (a).

Following the same, the credit in this case cannot be denied. Moreover, testing equipment and material handling equipment have been held to be eligible capital goods by this Tribunal.

3.In view of the above this appeal is allowed after setting aside the order.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial