SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

JEET RAM KAIT
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
Brakes India Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A. Jayachandran,R. Raghavan

ORDER

Per Jeet Ram Kait : Both these appeals are directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 223/98 (M-II) dt. 27/07/98, by which the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order of the Original Authority and allowed the appeal of the respondents.

2. Ld. DR Shri A. Jayachandran submits that the capital goods have been defined under Rule 57Q at the time of introduction of MODVAT scheme to capital goods and later the list was enlarged under the clause d-(1) to (x) by Notification No. 11/95-CE(NT), dt. 16.03.95 as to include such of those machines, which were not covered by the explanation to Rule 57Q earlier. Therefore the item "de-humidifier" is outside the ambit of Rule 57Q. He further submitted that Rule 57Q clearly explains the capital goods as machines, machineries, plant equipment apparatus, tools or appliances used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final products. Further the "de-humidifier" are not used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final products. The impugned products are also not a spare parts, components or ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top