Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2010 (8) TMI 303

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd filtration done by the assessee bring out any chemical change in their products Hydrochloric Acid and Sulphuric Acid, and same amount to manufacture? 3 The issue in the above Petition is as regards the eligibility of the Respondent herein for MODVAT credit on inputs used by them for the manufacture of Hydrochloric Acid and Sulphuric Acid. The Respondent herein is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 28 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and is availing the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57A. The Respondent filed a declaration under Rule 57G (1) on 5th June 1995, wherein Hydrochloric acid is treated with resin to purify and the same is packed in Carboys the department on the ground that the purificat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the demand to that effect under Rule 57I of the Central Excise Rules 1944 and imposed penalty of Rs.20,000/under the provisions of Rule 173Q of the said Rules.  5 Aggrieved by the said order in original dated 20th June 1996, the Respondent herein filed an Appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The Commissioner upheld the said order in original dated 20th June 1996 and rejected the Appeal of the Respondent herein. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner, the Respondent herein filed further Appeal before the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "CESTAT"). By the impugned judgment and order dated 9th February 2004, the CESTAT allowed the said Appeal and set aside....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd shall include not only a person who employs hired labour in the production or manufacture of excisable goods, but also any person who engages in their production or manufacture on his own account" The learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that even though the ultimate product of the Respondent remains the same i.e. Hydrocholic acid and Sulphuric acid, there is manufacturing process involved as there is purification and filtration to make the product marketable in the international market and therefore the same would be covered by the term "manufacture" as contemplated in the said clause 2(f). 8 The learned counsel for the Respondent relied upon the Judgment of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam reported in 1975 E.L.T. (J 520....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is apposite to the issue in dispute here. There this Court reiterated that it was not that aplace where goods were sold was only a shop. But a place where services were sold on retail basis was also a shop. The place of business of a firm carrying on the business of playing music on occasion, such as, marriage and other social functions which made available on payment of the stipulated price the services of the members of the group of musicians employed by it on wages was a shop to which the Act was applicable by virtue of the notification. The fact that the services were rendered by the employees engaged by the firm intermittently or during marriages did not entitle the firm to claim any exemption from the operation of the Act. In Metro Re....