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.

Collector of C.Ex. Vs. Apsara Art Material Pvt. Ltd.

Collector of C.Ex. vs Apsara Art Material Pvt. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Mar 25, 1998
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/13162

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 Delhi
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of C.Ex.

Respondent

Apsara Art Material Pvt. Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(1999)(107)ELT216TriDel

Excerpt

.....and 1-11-1987 in respect of nitro cellulose lacquers. when they crossed the clearance value of rs. 15 lakhs, they started paying on the clearance of this product and took modvat credit on duty paid thereon. in november, 1987, they commenced manufacture of pva glue and claimed full exemption upto the value of rs. 15 lakhs. since the department was of the view that simultaneous availment of modvat and exemption under notification no. 175/86 even though in respect of the goods under different headings could not be availed, a show cause notice was issued proposing demand of duty on p.v.a. glue for the period from december, 1987 to march, 1988. the demand was confirmed by the assistant collector; however, the lower appellate authority accepted the plea of the respondents that simultaneous availment was permissible and he set aside the assistant collector's order and allowed the appeal and hence this appeal by the revenue.3. we have heard shri h.k. jain, learned dr and shri pradeep jain, learned advocate. we find that this issue has been settled by the tribunal in the case of faridabad tools ltd. 1993 (63) e.l.t. 759 and the appeal filed by the revenue against this order of the tribunal was rejected by the hon'ble supreme court as seen from 1996 (82) e.l.t.a-149. the tribunal's order in the case of faridabad tools has been followed subsequent to the supreme court order in the case of collector of central excise, meerut v. nova vision 1996 (15) rlt 336 (tribunal).the plea of the learned dr that the supreme court dismissal of the revenue's appeal in the case of faridabad tools will not act as a precedent because the appeal has been dismissed by the supreme court in limine, cannot be accepted since he is not able to substantiate this averment and further since the report of this supreme court order in 1996 (82) e.l.t. a-149 only states that the supreme court bench has dismissed the civil appeal filed by the collector of central excise against the final order passed by.....

Full Judgment

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by the Revenue is as to whether an assessee can simultaneously avail benefit of full exemption in terms of Notification No. 176/86 which goods falling under one heading and pay duty and avail Modvat credit on goods falling under another heading.

2. The respondents herein are a registered small scale unit manufacturing Nitro Cellulose lacquers falling under Heading 32.08 and (2) P.V.A. glue falling under Heading 35.06. They filed classification list effective from 1-4-1987 and 1-11-1987 in respect of Nitro Cellulose lacquers. When they crossed the clearance value of Rs. 15 lakhs, they started paying on the clearance of this product and took Modvat credit on duty paid thereon. In November, 1987, they commenced manufacture of PVA glue and claimed full exemption upto the value of Rs. 15 lakhs. Since the department was of the view that simultaneous availment of Modvat and exemption under Notification No. 175/86 even though in respect of the goods under different headings could not be availed, a show cause notice was issued proposing demand of duty on P.V.A. glue for the period from December, 1987 to March, 1988. The demand was confirmed by the Assistant Collector; however, the lower Appellate authority accepted the plea of the respondents that simultaneous availment was permissible and he set aside the Assistant Collector's order and allowed the appeal and hence this appeal by the Revenue.

3. We have heard Shri H.K. Jain, learned DR and Shri Pradeep Jain, learned Advocate. We find that this issue has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of Faridabad Tools Ltd. 1993 (63) E.L.T. 759 and the appeal filed by the Revenue against this order of the Tribunal was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as seen from 1996 (82) E.L.T.A-149. The Tribunal's order in the case of Faridabad Tools has been followed subsequent to the Supreme Court order in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Meerut v. Nova Vision 1996 (15) RLT 336 (Tribunal).

The plea of the learned DR that the Supreme Court dismissal of the Revenue's appeal in the case of Faridabad Tools will not act as a precedent because the appeal has been dismissed by the Supreme Court in limine, cannot be accepted since he is not able to substantiate this averment and further since the report of this Supreme Court order in 1996 (82) E.L.T. A-149 only states that the Supreme Court Bench has dismissed the Civil appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise against the final order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Faridabad Tools 1993 (63) E.L.T. 759. In this view of the matter and noting that the Tribunal has subsequently held that simultaneous availment of Modvat and full exemption is available, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and reject the appeal of the Revenue.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial