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. Chem Equip Ltd.

Cce vs Chem Equip Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Aug 10, 1998
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/14086

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

Chem Equip Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(1999)(82)LC638Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. this is a departmental appeal against order-in-original no. 26/90 dated 31.7.1990 passed by the collector of central excise, bombay withdrawing the show cause notice issued by the assistant collector to the respondent. we have heard both sides.2. respondent, engaged in the manufacture of s.o. dyes and organic surface active agent, was filing price lists from time to time claiming deduction of 12.75% trade discount and certain post manufacturing expenses. price lists were being provisionally approved allowing deduction of trade discount but disallowing deduction of other expenses. respondent was paying duty on that basis, though under protest. while so, it was found that trade discount was not being uniformly given to all buyers. accordingly, show cause notice dated 28.6.1989 was issued referring to the above facts and proposing demand of differential duty on the element of trade discount in respect of clearances during the period 1.6.1984 to 30.5.1989. respondent contested the notice. the collector of central excise took the view that deductibility of the trade discount would be a matter for decision in the final order to be passed approving the price list and therefore the show cause notice was premature. he accordingly withdrew the show cause notice directing the jurisdictional assistant collector to examine this issue along with other issues at the time of finalisation of price lists and to take necessary action according to law. this order is being challenged.3. shri r.d. negi, sdr referred to the memorandum of appeal in which it is stated that trade discount was not given uniformly to all buyers and cannot be allowed since finalisation of price lists is still pending before the adjudicating authority. this is a matter for the adjudicating authority to decide after granting due opportunity to the respondent. this was precisely what the jurisdictional collector held.we find no error in the impugned order and accordingly dismiss the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. This is a departmental appeal against Order-in-Original No. 26/90 dated 31.7.1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay withdrawing the show cause notice issued by the Assistant Collector to the respondent. We have heard both sides.

2. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of S.O. Dyes and Organic Surface Active Agent, was filing price lists from time to time claiming deduction of 12.75% trade discount and certain post manufacturing expenses. Price lists were being provisionally approved allowing deduction of trade discount but disallowing deduction of other expenses. Respondent was paying duty on that basis, though under protest. While so, it was found that trade discount was not being uniformly given to all buyers. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 28.6.1989 was issued referring to the above facts and proposing demand of differential duty on the element of trade discount in respect of clearances during the period 1.6.1984 to 30.5.1989. Respondent contested the notice. The Collector of Central Excise took the view that deductibility of the trade discount would be a matter for decision in the final order to be passed approving the price list and therefore the show cause notice was premature. He accordingly withdrew the show cause notice directing the jurisdictional Assistant Collector to examine this issue along with other issues at the time of finalisation of price lists and to take necessary action according to law. This order is being challenged.

3. Shri R.D. Negi, SDR referred to the memorandum of appeal in which it is stated that trade discount was not given uniformly to all buyers and cannot be allowed since finalisation of price lists is still pending before the Adjudicating Authority. This is a matter for the Adjudicating Authority to decide after granting due opportunity to the respondent. This was precisely what the jurisdictional Collector held.We find no error in the impugned order and accordingly dismiss the appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial