Case Details: Sulzer Processors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise-II (2026) 43 Centax 22 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Alok Aradhe, JJ.
- S/Shri Ramakrishnan Veeraraghavan, Sr. Adv., Ms Suchitra Kumbhat, Sadiq Noor, Rohit H. Nair, Ms Benila Bm, Advocates & Vivek Jain, AOR, for the Appellant.
- S/Shri N. Venkatraman, A.S.G. (NP), Ms Nisha Bagchi, Sr. Advocate, V C Bharathi, Ms Ruchi Gour Narula, Udai Khanna, Navanjay Mahapatra, Advocates & Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee claimed eligibility for the Compounded Levy Scheme as an independent textile processor. The department rejected the claim on the ground that none of the specified processes, such as bleaching, dyeing or printing, was carried out on the fibre/top dyed fabric processed by the assessee, and that the investment in plant and machinery exceeded the prescribed limit of Rs. 3 crores. The assessee contended that the value of DG sets and pollution control equipment should be excluded from the computation of investment in plant and machinery, as they were not used in fabric processing. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) and the High Court rejected this contention. The assessee challenged the order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the department, CESTAT, and the High Court were based on correct conclusions of facts. It was further held that there was no merit in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal against the High Court order was dismissed.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Sulzer Processers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2010 (254) E.L.T. 569 (Raj.) — Affirmed [Para]
