Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Trisure India Ltd. Vs. Cce

Trisure India Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 21, 1998
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/12684

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Trisure India Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In
(1998)(75)LC299Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. order dated 31.12.1990 passed by the additional collector of central excise, bombay is under challenge in this appeal.2. appellant manufactures flanges, nozzles and plugs, receives tops of drums from suppliers, fits the manufactured articles on the top and returns the tops to the suppliers. appellant was availing benefit of notification no. 120/75, was issuing invoices showing the prices of flanges, nozzles and plugs and job charges received for fitting them on the tops of drums and paying duty on such invoice price. in respect of the period from september, 1983 to 28.2.1986 show cause notice dated 7.10.1988 was issued stating that the information about fitting the manufactured products on the tops of drums was suppressed from the knowledge of the department and duty was payable on the value of tops also. though the appellant resisted the notice on merits and on limitation, the additional collector confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. hence, the present appeal.3. since the appellant was availing benefit of notification no. 120/75, the value of materials received free of cost from the customers cannot be regarded as dutiable. this is the view taken by the supreme court in texmaco ltd., . following the above decision, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. Order dated 31.12.1990 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay is under challenge in this appeal.

2. Appellant manufactures flanges, nozzles and plugs, receives tops of drums from suppliers, fits the manufactured articles on the top and returns the tops to the suppliers. Appellant was availing benefit of Notification No. 120/75, was issuing invoices showing the prices of flanges, nozzles and plugs and job charges received for fitting them on the tops of drums and paying duty on such invoice price. In respect of the period from September, 1983 to 28.2.1986 show cause notice dated 7.10.1988 was issued stating that the information about fitting the manufactured products on the tops of drums was suppressed from the knowledge of the Department and duty was payable on the value of tops also. Though the appellant resisted the notice on merits and on limitation, the Additional Collector confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. Hence, the present appeal.

3. Since the appellant was availing benefit of Notification No. 120/75, the value of materials received free of cost from the customers cannot be regarded as dutiable. This is the view taken by the Supreme Court in Texmaco Ltd., . Following the above decision, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial