Nrc Limited Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Nrc Limited vs The Commissioner of Central

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Oct 21, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/32759

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/32759
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T S.S.
Decided On: Oct 21, 2003
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nrc Limited

Respondent

The Commissioner of Central

Excerpt

1. these two appeals of the same appellant are being disposed off by this common order. credit has been denied on the following items for the reasons as shown against the item :- credit claimed under rule 57q it is not eligible as it is an eligible under rule 57a and used only for cooling. iii) o' ring diaphrm screw, spring baffe & sa/nozzie blade a diaphram sa sozzle :- they being parts of controller used for controlly variable in manufacture process it does not produce/process final product. used for storage of air used in instruments for genera tic of steam used only for storage /collection only. since there are spares of hydro electric truck used in shifting rayon cakes with the producing. ix) godet hub, godet hub net, ceramic guide, funnel bracket base/holder & arms, adapter skirting :- invoice in name of head office and no movement records for evidencing receipt of the goods.2. on considering, in light of the well settled position, credit on all spares and parts of capital goods including material handling equipment i.e. the hydraulic truck would be eligible except for slotted angles and welding is not apparent and clear which is not permissible use. as regards the demand of the credit on head office invoices the same is set aside on that ground. the appellants however has to produce evidence of receipt of such goods to the jurisdictional deputy commissioner.3. since credit eligibility was unsettled and is found to be eligibility on majority of the item the penalties are not required the same are set aside.4. appeal allowed partly and remitted back only in case of slotted angles, welding electrode to re-determined the eligibility after determining the actual use. while this re-determination is being done, the original authority would also look into the evidence the appellants opt to produce for the items on head office invoice and have been recorded in the factory premises.

Full Judgment

1. These two appeals of the same appellant are being disposed off by this common order. Credit has been denied on the following items for the reasons as shown against the item :- Credit claimed under Rule 57Q it is not eligible as it is an eligible under Rule 57A and used only for cooling.

iii) O' Ring Diaphrm screw, spring baffe & SA/NozzIe blade A Diaphram SA sozzle :- They being parts of controller used for controlly variable in manufacture process it does not produce/process final product.

Used for storage of Air used in instruments for genera tic of steam used only for storage /collection only.

Since there are spares of Hydro electric truck used in shifting rayon cakes with the producing.

ix) Godet Hub, Godet Hub Net, Ceramic Guide, Funnel Bracket base/holder & Arms, Adapter Skirting :- Invoice in name of Head Office and no movement records for evidencing receipt of the goods.

2. On considering, in light of the well settled position, credit on all spares and parts of capital goods including material handling equipment i.e. the Hydraulic truck would be eligible except for Slotted Angles and Welding is not apparent and clear which is not permissible use. As regards the demand of the credit on Head Office invoices the same is set aside on that ground. The appellants however has to produce evidence of receipt of such goods to the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner.

3. Since credit eligibility was unsettled and is found to be eligibility on majority of the item the penalties are not required the same are set aside.

4. Appeal allowed partly and remitted back only in case of Slotted angles, Welding Electrode to re-determined the eligibility after determining the actual use. While this re-determination is being done, the original authority would also look into the evidence the appellants opt to produce for the items on Head Office invoice and have been recorded in the factory premises.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Nrc Limited vs The Commissioner of Central Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S T S.S.