Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Harcharan and Bros.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Harcharan and Bros.

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Punjab and Haryana Decided May 01, 2002

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/635920

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/635920
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Judge: Jawahar Lal Gupta and; N.K. Sud, JJ.
Decided On: May 01, 2002
Case Number: CCES No. 30 of 2002
Subject: Excise
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

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

Central Excise Act, 1944;Section 35H(1) - Reference to High Court--Whether the Tribunal is correct in allowing Modvat Credit on 'grinding wheels' as inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 whereas the grinding wheels are in the nature of tools ? -

Key legal issue: Excise
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Harcharan and Bros.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Chandigarh v. Zenith Papers
Reported In: 2002(82)ECC49; 2002(149)ELT73(P& H)

Excerpt

central excise act, 1944;section 35h(1) - reference to high court--whether the tribunal is correct in allowing modvat credit on 'grinding wheels' as inputs under rule 57a of the central excise rules, 1944 whereas the grinding wheels are in the nature of tools ? - orderjawahar lal gupta, j.1. the first respondent is engaged in the manufacture of ci pipes. it claimed modvat credit in respect of various items including grinding wheels. the assessee's claim was rejected by the dy. commissioner. however, on appeal, the claim was allowed. the revenue challenged the order before the tribunal. the appeal was dismissed. the revenue has now filed this petition under section 35h(1) of the central excise act, 1944, with the prayer that the tribunal be directed to refer the following question for the opinion of this court:whether the tribunal is correct in allowing modvat credit on 'grinding wheels' as inputs under rule 57a of the central excise rules, 1944 whereas the grinding wheels are in the nature of tools?2. a perusal of the order passed by the tribunal shows that it has followed its earlier decision in the case of batliboi & co. v. commissioner of central excise, baroda . mr. rajesh gumber, learned counsel has very fairly pointed out that even this court has taken a similar view in gcr 14 of 1999 (collector of central excise, chandigarh v. zenith papers) decided on january 14, 2002. in this case, it has been held as under:in view of the above, the position that emerges is that if the two products are treated as inputs, the assessee is entitled to modvat credit under rule 57-a however, if these are excluded from inputs by virtue of the explanation and are included in the category of machines etc., then the modvat credit shall be admissible under rule 57-q. in the ultimate analysis, the credit is admissible. resultantly, it appears that the view taken by the tribunal was a possible view. in the process, the revenue has not suffered any loss.similar is the position in the present case. in view of the above, we find that no referable question of law arises for the opinion of this court. the petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.

1. The first respondent is engaged in the manufacture of CI pipes. It claimed modvat credit in respect of various items including grinding wheels. The Assessee's claim was rejected by the Dy. Commissioner. However, on appeal, the claim was allowed. The Revenue challenged the order before the Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed. The Revenue has now filed this petition under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, with the prayer that the Tribunal be directed to refer the following question for the opinion of this Court:

Whether the Tribunal is correct in allowing modvat credit on 'grinding wheels' as inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 whereas the grinding wheels are in the nature of tools?

2. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that it has followed its earlier decision in the case of Batliboi & Co. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Baroda . Mr. Rajesh Gumber, learned Counsel has very fairly pointed out that even this Court has taken a similar view in GCR 14 of 1999 (Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Zenith Papers) decided on January 14, 2002. In this case, it has been held as under:

In view of the above, the position that emerges is that if the two products are treated as inputs, the assessee is entitled to Modvat credit under Rule 57-A However, if these are excluded from inputs by virtue of the Explanation and are included in the category of machines etc., then the Modvat credit shall be admissible under Rule 57-Q. In the ultimate analysis, the credit is admissible. Resultantly, it appears that the view taken by the Tribunal was a possible view. In the process, the Revenue has not suffered any loss.

Similar is the position in the present case. In view of the above, we find that no referable question of law arises for the opinion of this Court. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2002 Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Harcharan and Bros. Same Subject Excise Same Judge Jawahar Lal Gupta and; N.K. Sud, JJ.

Excise