Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Goetze India Limited

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Goetze India Limited

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided May 17, 2004

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/35261

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/35261
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang
Decided On: May 17, 2004
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

Goetze India Limited

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(170)ELT563TriDel

Excerpt

2. revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby the benefit of modvat credit in respect of flip trolley/pin trolley was allowed as capital goods.3. the contention of the revenue is that these trolleys are classified under chapter 87 of the schedule to central excise tariff act, 1985 and are not covered under the definition of capital goods under rule 57q of the central excise rules.4. the respondents produced the classification lists filed by the manufacture of the trolleys where these trolleys are classified under tsh 7326.90 and the manufacturer is paying appropriate duty under this heading and the heading 7326.90 of tariff is covered under the definition of the capital goods. in these circumstances, i find no infirmity in the impugned order. the appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of Flip Trolley/Pin Trolley was allowed as capital goods.

3. The contention of the Revenue is that these Trolleys are classified under Chapter 87 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are not covered under the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules.

4. The respondents produced the classification lists filed by the manufacture of the trolleys where these trolleys are classified under TSH 7326.90 and the manufacturer is paying appropriate duty under this heading and the Heading 7326.90 of Tariff is covered under the definition of the capital goods. In these circumstances, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Goetze India Limited Same Subject Excise Same Judge S Kang