Cce Vs. Brown Box

Cce vs Brown Box

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 23, 1998

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/12705

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/12705
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: U Bhat, S T K.
Decided On: Jan 23, 1998
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cce

Respondent

Brown Box

Legal References

Reported In: (1998)(75)LC280Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing, but has sent a request for adjournment. we find no ground for adjournment. we have heard shri k. srivastava, sdr and perused the papers.2. respondent, as job worker was receiving raw materials from customers manufacturing corrugated boxes, supplying the same to the customers and paying duty on the job charges under notification no. 119/75. the assistant collector denied the benefit of the notification on the ground that the product delivered to the buyer was different from the raw materials from the buyer and the benefit of the notification was not claimed in the classification list. the supreme court has held that in such cases the job worker would be entitled to the benefit of the notification see prestige engineering (india) ltd. .the omission to claim the benefit in the classification list cannot stand in the way of the respondent claiming benefit at a later stage.there is no ground to interfere. the appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing, but has sent a request for adjournment. We find no ground for adjournment. We have heard Shri K. Srivastava, SDR and perused the papers.

2. Respondent, as job worker was receiving raw materials from customers manufacturing corrugated boxes, supplying the same to the customers and paying duty on the job charges under Notification No. 119/75. The Assistant Collector denied the benefit of the notification on the ground that the product delivered to the buyer was different from the raw materials from the buyer and the benefit of the notification was not claimed in the classification list. The Supreme Court has held that in such cases the job worker would be entitled to the benefit of the notification See Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. .

The omission to claim the benefit in the classification list cannot stand in the way of the respondent claiming benefit at a later stage.

There is no ground to interfere. The appeal is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Cce vs Brown Box Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge U Bhat, S T K.