Cce Vs. Shell Extruders

Cce vs Shell Extruders

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad Decided Oct 03, 2007

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/46246

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/46246
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Judge: V T M.
Decided On: Oct 03, 2007
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cce

Respondent

Shell Extruders

Legal References

Reported In: (2008)(222)ELT383TriAhmd

Excerpt

1. this is a department's appeal against the order of the commissioner (appeals) no. 106/2006(ahd-i), dt.22.6.06.3. the relevant facts, in brief, are as follows. the respondent are doing job work and also undertaking manufacture on their own. they are availing cenvat credit for ldo and lpg. the department held the view that in respect of the goods manufactured and cleared on job work basis, no duty was being paid and therefore the cenvat credit involved amounting to rs. 81,019/- on the inputs ldo/lpg relatable to the goods manufactured on job work basis, should be reversed. therefore, a show cause notice was issued proposing a recovery of rs. 81,019. the original authority dropped the proceedings. on department's appeal, the commissioner (appeals) also rejected the appeal and upheld the order of the original authority. ld sdr seeks setting aside the order of the commissioner (appeals).4. the learned representative appearing for the respondent relied on the decision of the tribunal in case of national engineering ind. ltd. v. cce jaipur-i - 2002 (150) elt 161 (tri-del.) and claimed that the fuel was specifically excluded from the operation under rule 57c and 57cc and therefore no recovery to be made in respect of ldo/lpg used by them in the goods manufactured on job work basis and cleared without payment of duty.5. i have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. the dispute relates to the period prior to 16.5.05. as rightly noted by the commissioner (appeals), w.e.f. 16.5.05, the word and phrases "except inputs intended to be used as fuel" were dropped from the rule 6(2) cenvat credit rules, 2004, vide notification no. 27/2005-ce(nt), dt.16.5.05. the commissioner (appeals) has also relied on the decision in case of national engineering ind. ltd. cited supra. this decision is very much relevant to the present facts of the case. in view of these, i do not find any valid ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the original authority as well as.....

Full Judgment

1. This is a Department's appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 106/2006(Ahd-I), dt.22.6.06.

3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows. The respondent are doing job work and also undertaking manufacture on their own. They are availing cenvat credit for LDO and LPG. The department held the view that in respect of the goods manufactured and cleared on job work basis, no duty was being paid and therefore the cenvat credit involved amounting to Rs. 81,019/- on the inputs LDO/LPG relatable to the goods manufactured on job work basis, should be reversed. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued proposing a recovery of Rs. 81,019. The original authority dropped the proceedings. On department's appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected the appeal and upheld the order of the original authority. Ld SDR seeks setting aside the order of the commissioner (appeals).

4. The learned representative appearing for the respondent relied on the decision of the Tribunal in case of National Engineering Ind. Ltd. v. CCE Jaipur-I - 2002 (150) ELT 161 (Tri-Del.) and claimed that the fuel was specifically excluded from the operation under Rule 57C and 57CC and therefore no recovery to be made in respect of LDO/LPG used by them in the goods manufactured on job work basis and cleared without payment of duty.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. The dispute relates to the period prior to 16.5.05. as rightly noted by the commissioner (Appeals), w.e.f. 16.5.05, the word and phrases "except inputs intended to be used as fuel" were dropped from the Rule 6(2) Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, vide Notification No. 27/2005-CE(NT), dt.

16.5.05. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also relied on the decision in case of National Engineering Ind. Ltd. cited supra. This decision is very much relevant to the present facts of the case. In view of these, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the original authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals).

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahme... Same Parties Cce vs Shell Extruders Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge V T M.