NitIn Spinners Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

NitIn Spinners Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Oct 30, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/32856

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/32856
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: M T K.D.
Decided On: Oct 30, 2003
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

NitIn Spinners Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(163)ELT275TriDel

Excerpt

.....fibre glass and aluminium sections without payment of duty under notification no. 1/95-c.e., dated 4-1-95 by issuing ce-3 certificates. the said notification permits 100% eou to obtain excisable goods from the domestic unit in connection with "manufacture and packing of articles". the appellants claimed that fibre glass and aluminium sheets have been used by them in their factory for construction of false ceilings which in a special type of civil work. the appellant's case is that false ceiling works as an insulation and is an essential item to be installed with the humidification plant. it was pleaded that being a part of the humidification plant, the false ceilings and the material going into the construction/fabrication of the false ceilings should be treated as capital goods for the purpose of notification no. 1/95-c.e.3. learned d.r. strongly pleads that the appellants are not entitled for the benefit. the learned counsel is submitting that humidification plant is obviously covered by the capital goods. the humidification plant is incomplete without the provision of false ceilings without which the functioning of the plant would be ineffective. it is obvious that "fibre glass and aluminium channels" themselves do not act as components of humidification plant. they are fitted in the false ceilings. the false ceiling is civil structure. the false ceiling is not part of the humidification plant. the false ceiling is provided in location where humidification plant is operational so as to ensure that the efficiency of the plant is achieved. the false ceiling is merely a work of redesigning the site where the humidification plant is located so that the plant can work with efficiency. if false ceilings, as argued by the appellants, were to be considered as part of the humidification plant, then by that logic every window panes or door in an air-conditioning room will also qualify to be a part of the air-conditioner. this is totally an absurd argument and cannot be.....

Full Judgment

M/s. Nitin Spinners Ltd., appellants are 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of cotton and polyester cotton yarn. They procured fibre glass and aluminium sections without payment of duty under notification No. 1/95-C.E., dated 4-1-95 by issuing CE-3 certificates. The said notification permits 100% EOU to obtain excisable goods from the domestic unit in connection with "manufacture and packing of articles". The appellants claimed that fibre glass and aluminium sheets have been used by them in their factory for construction of false ceilings which in a special type of civil work. The appellant's case is that false ceiling works as an insulation and is an essential item to be installed with the humidification plant. It was pleaded that being a part of the humidification plant, the false ceilings and the material going into the construction/fabrication of the false ceilings should be treated as capital goods for the purpose of Notification No. 1/95-C.E.3. Learned D.R. strongly pleads that the appellants are not entitled for the benefit. The learned Counsel is submitting that humidification plant is obviously covered by the capital goods. The humidification plant is incomplete without the provision of false ceilings without which the functioning of the plant would be ineffective. It is obvious that "fibre glass and aluminium channels" themselves do not act as components of humidification plant. They are fitted in the false ceilings. The false ceiling is civil structure. The false ceiling is not part of the humidification plant. The false ceiling is provided in location where humidification plant is operational so as to ensure that the efficiency of the plant is achieved. The false ceiling is merely a work of redesigning the site where the humidification plant is located so that the plant can work with efficiency. If false ceilings, as argued by the appellants, were to be considered as part of the humidification plant, then by that logic every window panes or door in an air-conditioning room will also qualify to be a part of the air-conditioner. This is totally an absurd argument and cannot be supported. Accordingly, I hold that the appeal is without any merits and is accordingly rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties NitIn Spinners Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Excise Same Judge M T K.D.