The Non-such Tea Estates Ltd. Vs. Central Excise

The Non-such Tea Estates Ltd. vs Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu Decided Mar 10, 1999

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/15369

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/15369
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Judge: S Peeran, A T V.K.
Decided On: Mar 10, 1999
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

The Non-such Tea Estates Ltd.

Respondent

Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (1999)(66)ECC214

Excerpt

1. this appeal arises from order-in-appeal no. 218/90 dated 22.1.91.appellants claim to have received the order on 11.4.91 and filed this appeal on 24.7.91. there was marginal delay of 14 days in filing the appeal.2. after hearing both sides, the cod application is allowed by condoning the delay.3. the stay application had not been taken up for hearing by the bench at delhi since time of filing the appeal is 1991. the stay application as well as the appeal itself are taken-up together as the matter is covered in appellant's favour.4. appellants contend that for the interim period on which duty has been confirmed was covered by notification no. 227/86 dated 3.4.86 which had been retrospective effect and, therefore, demand raised for the period 1.3.86 to 2.4.86 against tea chests (articles of wood) falling under chapter sub-heading 4410.90 is not liable to be paid.5. in this regard, learned advocate relies on the larger bench judgment rendered in the case of saidex industries v. cc as wherein it was held that notification issued under central duties of excise (retrospective exemption) act, 1986 has got retrospective effect as the notifications were issued to maintain the levels of duty. the period prior and after the demands raised were exempted by notifications and, therefore, the notification in question has been held to have retrospective effect. therefore, learned counsel seeks for allowing the appeal by following the noted larger bench judgment.7. on careful consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the larger bench judgment (supra), we are satisfied that the issue is covered by above larger bench judgment and respectfully applying the ratio thereof, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.the stay petition is also disposed of.

Full Judgment

1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 218/90 dated 22.1.91.

Appellants claim to have received the order on 11.4.91 and filed this appeal on 24.7.91. There was marginal delay of 14 days in filing the appeal.

2. After hearing both sides, the COD application is allowed by condoning the delay.

3. The stay application had not been taken up for hearing by the Bench at Delhi since time of filing the appeal is 1991. The stay application as well as the appeal itself are taken-up together as the matter is covered in appellant's favour.

4. Appellants contend that for the interim period on which duty has been confirmed was covered by Notification No. 227/86 dated 3.4.86 which had been retrospective effect and, therefore, demand raised for the period 1.3.86 to 2.4.86 against Tea Chests (articles of Wood) falling under chapter sub-heading 4410.90 is not liable to be paid.

5. In this regard, Learned advocate relies on the Larger Bench judgment rendered in the case of Saidex Industries v. CC as wherein it was held that notification issued under Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986 has got retrospective effect as the notifications were issued to maintain the levels of duty. The period prior and after the demands raised were exempted by notifications and, therefore, the notification in question has been held to have retrospective effect. Therefore, Learned Counsel seeks for allowing the appeal by following the noted Larger Bench judgment.

7. On careful consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the Larger Bench judgment (supra), we are satisfied that the issue is covered by above Larger Bench judgment and respectfully applying the ratio thereof, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

The stay petition is also disposed of.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tami... Same Parties The Non-such Tea Estates Ltd. vs Central Excise Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S Peeran, A T V.K.