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. Polyplex Corpn. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Polyplex Corpn. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Apr 15, 2004
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/34937

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 Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Polyplex Corpn. Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(2004)(170)ELT487TriDel

Excerpt

.....the respondents on g.i. sheets and silicon spray, besides imposition of penalty on them equal to the amount of the modvat credit wrongly availed by them.2. i have heard both sides and gone through the record. the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of polyester films. the adjudicating authority disallowed the modvat credit on all the goods which are subject-matter of the show cause notice including the above said two goods through the order-in-original. the commissioner (appeals) had allowed the modvat credit on all the goods including the disputed one.3. the revenue has contested the allowance of the modvat credit on g.i.sheets and silicon spray only, in the present appeal. the commissioner (appeals) has allowed the credit on the g.i. sheets by observing that these had been used in the factory premises to protect the entry of dust which might settle on the manufactured polyster films. the learned counsel has, tried to support the order of the learned commissioner (appeals) in this regard, by referring to the definition of 'inputs' in rule 57aa(d), which indicates that the 'inputs' include all goods used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product whether directly or indirectly and whether contained in the final products or not. but, in my view, no capital out of this definition of the 'inputs' can be made by the respondents. the g.i. sheets had not been used undisputedly in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product i.e. polyester films. these have been put in the factory premises where the films are stored to avoid the entry of the dust. these sheets have nothing to do directly or indirectly with the manufacture of the final product of the respondents. therefore, the modvat credit on these sheets could not be allowed by the commissioner (appeals). the order of the commissioner (appeals) in this regard is set aside.4. however, on silicon spray which is being used as the anti rusting material for cleaning/lubricating the machines.....

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the denial of the Modvat credit to the respondents on G.I. Sheets and Silicon Spray, besides imposition of penalty on them equal to the amount of the Modvat credit wrongly availed by them.

2. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Polyester Films. The adjudicating authority disallowed the Modvat credit on all the goods which are subject-matter of the show cause notice including the above said two goods through the order-in-original. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the Modvat credit on all the goods including the disputed one.

3. The Revenue has contested the allowance of the Modvat credit on G.I.Sheets and Silicon Spray only, in the present appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the credit on the G.I. Sheets by observing that these had been used in the factory premises to protect the entry of dust which might settle on the manufactured Polyster Films. The learned Counsel has, tried to support the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard, by referring to the definition of 'Inputs' in Rule 57AA(d), which indicates that the 'inputs' include all goods used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product whether directly or indirectly and whether contained in the final products or not. But, in my view, no capital out of this definition of the 'inputs' can be made by the respondents. The G.I. Sheets had not been used undisputedly in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product i.e. Polyester Films. These have been put in the factory premises where the films are stored to avoid the entry of the dust. These sheets have nothing to do directly or indirectly with the manufacture of the final product of the respondents. Therefore, the Modvat credit on these sheets could not be allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard is set aside.

4. However, on Silicon Spray which is being used as the anti rusting material for cleaning/lubricating the machines involved in the manufacture of the final products, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly allowed the credit by following the ratio of the law laid down in the case of Modi Rubber Ltd., 2000 (119) E.L.T. 197. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard is upheld.5. Regarding the imposition of penalty for availing the wrongful Modvat credit in respect of the G.I. Sheets, the prayer of the Revenue cannot be allowed for the simple reason that in the show cause notice the imposition of penalty was never proposed. The Revenue cannot be permitted to travel beyond the scope of the show cause notice.

6. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) accordingly stands modified. The appeal of the Revenue stands disposed of in the above terms.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial