Cce Vs. Aarti Enterprises

Cce vs Aarti Enterprises

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

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/12707

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/12707
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: U Bhat, S T K.
Decided On: Jan 23, 1998
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cce

Respondent

Aarti Enterprises

Legal References

Reported In: (1998)(75)LC811Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the only dispute in the appeal relates to the applicability of notification no. 119/75. the respondent, engaged in the manufacture of tooth brushes, uses raw materials supplied by customers. the supreme court in prestige engineering (india) ltd., has held that in such circumstances the job worker would be entitled to the benefit of the notification. that the benefit was not claimed in the classification list cannot be a ground to disallow the benefit at a later stage. the appeal of the department against the order passed by the collector (appeals) granting benefit of the notification to the respondent is not sustainable. the appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. The only dispute in the appeal relates to the applicability of Notification No. 119/75. The respondent, engaged in the manufacture of tooth brushes, uses raw materials supplied by customers. The Supreme Court in Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd., has held that in such circumstances the job worker would be entitled to the benefit of the notification. That the benefit was not claimed in the classification list cannot be a ground to disallow the benefit at a later stage. The appeal of the Department against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) granting benefit of the notification to the respondent is not sustainable. The appeal is dismissed.

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