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.

Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jun 08, 1999
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/15991

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
Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Legal References

Reported In
(2002)(146)ELT622TriDel

Excerpt

1. case called. heard both sides with reference to the appeal filed by the assessee.2. shri lakshmi kumaran, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that issue involved herein has been covered by the decision of the tribunal in the very party's case reported in 1999(31) rlt 5. in that case it was held that the activity of coal handling plant does not amount to manufacture.3. shri prabhat kumar, learned sdr requests for some time to check up the position whether the department has filed an appeal against the order referred to above. request is not acceded to.4. since the issue has already been considered and concluded by the tribunal, following the same, we accept the contention of the appellant and accordingly appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.

Full Judgment

1. Case called. Heard both sides with reference to the appeal filed by the assessee.

2. Shri Lakshmi Kumaran, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that issue involved herein has been covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the very party's case reported in 1999(31) RLT 5. In that case it was held that the activity of coal handling plant does not amount to manufacture.

3. Shri Prabhat Kumar, learned SDR requests for some time to check up the position whether the Department has filed an appeal against the order referred to above. Request is not acceded to.

4. Since the issue has already been considered and concluded by the Tribunal, following the same, we accept the contention of the appellant and accordingly appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial