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 C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Adarsh Inds. Ltd.

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. vs Adarsh Inds. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 05, 2004
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/33667

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
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Respondent

Adarsh Inds. Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(2004)(166)ELT466Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the appeal of the revenue is directed against the order of the commissioner (appeals) extending the capital goods credit on 3 items viz. control panel, water storage tank and m.s. fabricated tower structure to the respondents herein who are manufacturers of glass tubes.2. i have heard both sides. control panel has already been held to be covered by definition of capital goods. hence, it is eligible to capital goods credit. as regards water storage tank, this is also an item eligible to capital goods credit as it serves the purpose of continuous cooling of glass electrodes to maintain their quality by water circulation from this water tank. as regards m.s. fabricated tower structure, it is brought out from the written submission filed before the asstt. commissioner that it is attached on top of the recuperator and the glass tube bundle recuperator is inserted into tower structure and insulated from inside. tube bundle structures are heated for melting glass in the furnace. therefore, this item is also covered by the definition of the capital goods under rule 57q and hence eligible to capital goods credit. i further note that beyond the mere assertion in the appeal filed before the tribunal that m.s. fabricated tower structures are not parts of capital goods and hence not covered by rule 57q, there is no explanation or substantiation of this contention. in view of the above discussion, i hold that there is no ground to interfere with the order of the commissioner (appeals) and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) extending the capital goods credit on 3 items viz. Control Panel, Water Storage Tank and M.S. Fabricated Tower Structure to the Respondents herein who are manufacturers of glass tubes.

2. I have heard both sides. Control Panel has already been held to be covered by definition of Capital Goods. Hence, it is eligible to capital goods credit. As regards water storage tank, this is also an item eligible to capital goods credit as it serves the purpose of continuous cooling of glass electrodes to maintain their quality by water circulation from this water tank. As regards M.S. Fabricated Tower Structure, it is brought out from the written submission filed before the Asstt. Commissioner that it is attached on top of the recuperator and the glass tube bundle recuperator is inserted into tower structure and insulated from inside. Tube bundle structures are heated for melting glass in the furnace. Therefore, this item is also covered by the definition of the capital goods under Rule 57Q and hence eligible to capital goods credit. I further note that beyond the mere assertion in the appeal filed before the Tribunal that M.S. Fabricated Tower Structures are not parts of capital goods and hence not covered by Rule 57Q, there is no explanation or substantiation of this contention. In view of the above discussion, I hold that there is no ground to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial