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.

Kranti Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Kranti Ssk Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Feb 17, 2005
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/38171

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
Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kranti Ssk Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(2005)(184)ELT395Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the application for waiver of pre-deposit of rs. 2,03,94,239/- and equal penalty arises out of the order of the commissioner of central excise, pune, who has held that the applicants are not entitled to cenvat credit of capital goods, viz. sugar plant machinery, in terms of rule 3 of cenvat credit rules, 2002, on the ground that it was m/s.krupp industries india ltd. who had manufactured the entire sugar plant machinery.3. the applicants have made out a strong prima facie case for waiver in the light of the definition of capital goods in rule 2(b) of the cenvat credit rules, 2002 which defines capital goods as "all goods falling under chapters 82, 84 .....used in the factory of the manufacturer of final product." prima facie there is no finding of the commissioner that the use of the machinery was by m/s. krupp industries india ltd. in their factory for the manufacture of sugar or molasses. in other words, although the commissioner has found that the machinery was manufactured by m/s. krupp industries, he has not further held that the use of such machinery was in krupp's factory for the manufacture of final products. therefore, in the light of rule 2(b) of the cenvat credit rules, 2002, the applicants have made out a prima facie case.we, therefore, waive pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 2,03,94,239/- and equal penalty arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, who has held that the applicants are not entitled to Cenvat credit of capital goods, viz. sugar plant machinery, in terms of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, on the ground that it was M/s.

Krupp Industries India Ltd. who had manufactured the entire sugar plant machinery.

3. The applicants have made out a strong prima facie case for waiver in the light of the definition of capital goods in Rule 2(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 which defines capital goods as "all goods falling under Chapters 82, 84 .....used in the factory of the manufacturer of final product." Prima facie there is no finding of the Commissioner that the use of the machinery was by M/s. Krupp Industries India Ltd. in their factory for the manufacture of sugar or molasses. In other words, although the Commissioner has found that the machinery was manufactured by M/s. Krupp Industries, he has not further held that the use of such machinery was in Krupp's factory for the manufacture of final products. Therefore, in the light of Rule 2(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, the applicants have made out a prima facie case.

We, therefore, waive pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial