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.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Reliance Industries Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Dec 01, 2003
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/33259

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

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Reliance Industries Ltd.

Excerpt

2. the dispute in the instant appeal by the revenue relates to availability of modvat credit on 'lubricating oils" and "anti-seize agents". in the grounds of appeal, it is claimed that the commissioner (appeals) has erred by placing reliance on the tribunal's order in respect of the respondents own case in order no. c-1/305-314/99/wrb dated 19.1.2000. it is claimed that the tribunal has erred in reaching the conclusion that credit is admissible.3.it is noticed that the correct approach for the commissioner would have been to challenge the decision of the tribunal before the appropriate authorities rather than filing this appeal against the order of the commissioner (appeals), which follows the tribunal's decision. it is also seen that the larger bench of the tribunal in its decision reported at 2000 (38) rlt 718 (cce, meerut vs. modi rubber ltd & others and u.p. state sugar corporation ltd. & others vs cce, allahabad & ors.) has held that lubricating oil and greases are eligible inputs prior to 1.3.1997, as their use in the machinery is in or in relation to manufacture of final products. in the instant case, the period involved is prior to 1.3.1997.4. on the basis of the above findings, i hold that the appeal filed by the revenue is without any merit and the same is rejected.

Full Judgment

2. The dispute in the instant appeal by the Revenue relates to availability of modvat credit on 'lubricating oils" and "anti-seize agents". In the grounds of appeal, it is claimed that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred by placing reliance on the Tribunal's order in respect of the respondents own case in order no. C-1/305-314/99/WRB dated 19.1.2000. It is claimed that the Tribunal has erred in reaching the conclusion that credit is admissible.

3.It is noticed that the correct approach for the Commissioner would have been to challenge the decision of the Tribunal before the appropriate authorities rather than filing this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which follows the Tribunal's decision. It is also seen that the larger bench of the Tribunal in its decision reported at 2000 (38) RLT 718 (CCE, Meerut vs. Modi Rubber Ltd & Others and U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. & Others vs CCE, Allahabad & Ors.) has held that lubricating oil and greases are eligible inputs prior to 1.3.1997, as their use in the machinery is in or in relation to manufacture of final products. In the instant case, the period involved is prior to 1.3.1997.

4. On the basis of the above findings, I hold that the appeal filed by the Revenue is without any merit and the same is rejected.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial