Arvind Intex Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Arvind Intex vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Dec 11, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/33399

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/33399
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T C.
Decided On: Dec 11, 2003
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Arvind Intex

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(167)ELT235Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. heard both sides. the lower authorities have denied credit on capital goods amounting to rs. 82,750/- and penalty of rs. 10,000/- has also been imposed in respect of two machineries :- shri vyas, learned advocate states that the first machine is used for wrapping a set of cones of yarn and is as such used for packing of finished goods to make it marketable. as far as the second machine is concerned, he states that this machine is used for replacing flats in carding machines as the flats are used for opening cotton for carding which has to be replaced after 400 tonnes of cotton is carded. he submits that the first machine is used for packing and completion of finished goods to make it marketable whereas the second machine is used for making the raw material suitable for use in the manufacture of yarn and hence both are eligible for modvat credit. i find merit in the submissions made by the learned advocate. considering the functions of both the machines, i am of the view that both are eligible for modvat under the existing rule in force at the relevant time. as such, i set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential benefit.

Full Judgment

1. Heard both sides. The lower authorities have denied credit on capital goods amounting to Rs. 82,750/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has also been imposed in respect of two machineries :- Shri Vyas, learned Advocate states that the first machine is used for wrapping a set of cones of yarn and is as such used for packing of finished goods to make it marketable. As far as the second machine is concerned, he states that this machine is used for replacing flats in carding machines as the flats are used for opening cotton for carding which has to be replaced after 400 tonnes of cotton is carded. He submits that the first machine is used for packing and completion of finished goods to make it marketable whereas the second machine is used for making the raw material suitable for use in the manufacture of yarn and hence both are eligible for Modvat credit. I find merit in the submissions made by the learned Advocate. Considering the functions of both the machines, I am of the view that both are eligible for Modvat under the existing rule in force at the relevant time. As such, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential benefit.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Arvind Intex vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Excise Same Judge S T C.