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.

Cce Vs. Sunway (i)(P) Ltd.

Cce vs Sunway (i)(P) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Feb 13, 1998
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/12869

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
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

Sunway (i)(P) Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(1998)(77)LC158Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....thereof paying duty accordingly. in respect of supplies made to government departments, appellant filed refund claim of rs. 4,62,426.00 on the ground that those goods were partially exempt under notification 45/82. in respect of the medicines manufactured and supplied to buyers other than government departments, appellant was availing the benefit of notification 245/83. it was a condition of notification 245/83 that the benefit of exemption will not be available unless it is claimed in respect of all medicines covered by the statutory price list. the assistant collector rejected the refund claim on the ground that respondent enjoying the benefit of notification 245/83 in respect of certain goods would not be entitled to the benefit of notification 245/83 in respect of other goods. this order was set aside by the collector (appeals) who allowed the refund. hence the present appeal.3. department has no case that the goods supplied to government departments did not attract the benefit of notification no. 45/82 or that the condition, if any, stipulated in the notification had not been satisfied by the respondent. on this short ground it must be held that benefit of notification 45/82 would be available. the notification no.245/83 arises only in relation to pp medicines in respect of which statutory retail price had been fixed. it was a condition of the notification that the benefit of notification cannot be claimed unless it is claimed in respect of all medicines covered by the statutory price list. the contention of the department is that the respondent was not claiming the benefit of notification no. 245/83 in respect of medicines supplied to government departments and therefore, violated the conditions stipulated therein. if the respondent had violated any condition stipulated in notification no. 245/83, consequence should be the denial of benefit of that notification and not the denial of notification no. 45/82. we find no ground to interfere with the decision.....

Full Judgment

1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri K. Srivastava, SDR.2. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of PP medicines, was filing price lists in Part I and Part II and on approval thereof paying duty accordingly. In respect of supplies made to Government departments, appellant filed refund claim of Rs. 4,62,426.00 on the ground that those goods were partially exempt under Notification 45/82. In respect of the medicines manufactured and supplied to buyers other than Government departments, appellant was availing the benefit of Notification 245/83. It was a condition of Notification 245/83 that the benefit of exemption will not be available unless it is claimed in respect of all medicines covered by the statutory price list. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim on the ground that respondent enjoying the benefit of Notification 245/83 in respect of certain goods would not be entitled to the benefit of Notification 245/83 in respect of other goods. This order was set aside by the Collector (Appeals) who allowed the refund. Hence the present appeal.

3. Department has no case that the goods supplied to Government departments did not attract the benefit of Notification No. 45/82 or that the condition, if any, stipulated in the Notification had not been satisfied by the respondent. On this short ground it must be held that benefit of Notification 45/82 would be available. The Notification No.245/83 arises only in relation to PP medicines in respect of which statutory retail price had been fixed. It was a condition of the Notification that the benefit of notification cannot be claimed unless it is claimed in respect of all medicines covered by the statutory price list. The contention of the department is that the respondent was not claiming the benefit of Notification No. 245/83 in respect of medicines supplied to Government departments and therefore, violated the conditions stipulated therein. If the respondent had violated any condition stipulated in Notification No. 245/83, consequence should be the denial of benefit of that Notification and not the denial of Notification No. 45/82. We find no ground to interfere with the decision of the Collector (Appeals).

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial