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.

Century Rayon Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Century Rayon vs The Commissioner of Central

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Oct 22, 2003
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/32762

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

Century Rayon

Respondent

The Commissioner of Central

Excerpt

1. the issue in this appeal is the eligibility under rule 57q as capital goods to a manufacture of rayon yarn the following items :- "... i) lead sheets, the appellants submit that rayon yarn is manufactured by chemical transformation of natural organic polymers-cellulose. in this process acidic chemicals like caustic soda, sulphric acid and other chemicals are used. rayon yarn machinery which is made of steel can not withstand the chemical reaction in rayon yarn manufacturing process. the machinery is therefore lined with lead sheets which are corrosion resistant to chemical reaction. the lead sheets as such or after cutting are lined on the rayon spinning machinery which falls under excise chapter heading 8445.00 and the same is specified for eligible capital goods under rule 57q. ii) glass tubing: the appellants submit that glass tubings are used as such or after converting in glass funnel are the essential part of rayon yarn spinning machine and guide the movement of yarn. the appellants further submit that tubes and pipe fitting thereof are specified capital goods under sr. no. (8) of the table given under rule 57q of the central excise rule, 1944, " 2. the item at sr. no. (i) above is entitled following the decision of the commissioner of central excise v. mordia chemicals ltd. 2002 (147) elt 645 for such cladding materials. as regard serial no. (ii). there is no material on record to rebut the finding of essential nature of the glass item being claimed by the appellants. the finding of it being for maintenance cannot be upheld since use of glass items can only be replacements parts and not for maintenance purposes. parts are eligible.3. this appeal is therefore allowed after setting aside and the impugned order.

Full Judgment

1. The issue in this appeal is the eligibility under Rule 57Q as capital goods to a manufacture of Rayon yarn the following items :- "... i) Lead sheets, the appellants submit that Rayon yarn is manufactured by chemical transformation of natural organic polymers-cellulose. In this process acidic chemicals like caustic soda, sulphric acid and other chemicals are used. Rayon yarn machinery which is made of steel can not withstand the chemical reaction in Rayon yarn manufacturing process. The machinery is therefore lined with lead sheets which are corrosion resistant to chemical reaction. The lead sheets as such or after cutting are lined on the Rayon spinning machinery which falls under excise chapter heading 8445.00 and the same is specified for eligible capital goods under Rule 57Q. ii) Glass Tubing: the appellants submit that glass tubings are used as such or after converting in glass funnel are the essential part of Rayon yarn spinning machine and guide the movement of yarn. The appellants further submit that tubes and pipe fitting thereof are specified capital goods under sr. No. (8) of the table given under Rule 57Q of The Central Excise Rule, 1944, " 2. The item at sr. No. (i) above is entitled following the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise v. Mordia Chemicals Ltd. 2002 (147) ELT 645 for such cladding materials. As regard serial No. (ii). There is no material on record to rebut the finding of essential nature of the glass item being claimed by the appellants. The finding of it being for maintenance cannot be upheld since use of glass items can only be replacements parts and not for maintenance purposes. Parts are eligible.

3. This appeal is therefore allowed after setting aside and the impugned order.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial