Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shree Ram Mills Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Shree Ram Mills Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jun 23, 1999

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/16084

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/16084
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Jun 23, 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

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Shree Ram Mills Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (1999)(113)ELT147TriDel

Excerpt

1. in this appeal filed by the revenue the matter relates to the classification and durability of the tracing cloth. the respondents m/s. shree ram mills ltd. have claimed the benefit of exemption notification no. 47/86-c.e., dated 10-2-1986 as amended by notification no. 52/91-c.e., dated 25-7-1991. the collector of central excise (appeals) had held that while the tracing cloth was not eligible for the benefit of notification no. 47/86-c.e., dated 10-2-1986 and notification no. 63/87-c.e., it had not been disputed by the revenue whether their claim for the benefit of notification no. 56/91-c.e., dated 25-7-1991 and no. 52/91-c.e., dated 25-7-1991 was available or not.3. shri a.k. agarwal, ld. sdr appearing for the appellant revenue submitted that the collector of central excise (appeals) had held that the tracing cloth was not eligible for the benefit of notification no.47/86-c.e., dated 10-2-1986 and notification no. 63/87-c.e., and that the notification no. 56/91-c.e., dated 25-7-1991 and 52/91-c.e., dated 25-7-1991 were only amending notifications and were not independent notifications. once the benefit of original notification was not available, the view that the amending notification has not be referred to was not correct.4. we have carefully considered the matter. we have seen two notifications which are under consideration being notification no.47/86-c.e. and notification no. 63/87-c.e. the collector (appeals) had agreed with the department that as the goods were tracing cloth, they are not eligible for the benefit of these notifications. we find that notifications nos. 52/91-c.e. and 56/91-c.e. were only amending notifications and they amended notification no. 47/86-c.e., dated 10-2-1986 and notification no. 63/87-c.e. respectively. the view taken by the learned collector of central excise (appeals) that the respondents claim to the benefit of these amending notifications has not been challenged, is not correct. the assistant collector of central excise con

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the matter relates to the classification and durability of the tracing cloth. The respondents M/s. Shree Ram Mills Ltd. have claimed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 47/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 as amended by Notification No. 52/91-C.E., dated 25-7-1991. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had held that while the tracing cloth was not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 47/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 and Notification No. 63/87-C.E., it had not been disputed by the Revenue whether their claim for the benefit of Notification No. 56/91-C.E., dated 25-7-1991 and No. 52/91-C.E., dated 25-7-1991 was available or not.

3. Shri A.K. Agarwal, ld. SDR appearing for the appellant Revenue submitted that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had held that the tracing cloth was not eligible for the benefit of Notification No.47/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 and Notification No. 63/87-C.E., and that the Notification No. 56/91-C.E., dated 25-7-1991 and 52/91-C.E., dated 25-7-1991 were only amending notifications and were not independent notifications. Once the benefit of original notification was not available, the view that the amending notification has not be referred to was not correct.

4. We have carefully considered the matter. We have seen two notifications which are under consideration being Notification No.47/86-C.E. and Notification No. 63/87-C.E. The Collector (Appeals) had agreed with the Department that as the goods were tracing cloth, they are not eligible for the benefit of these notifications. We find that Notifications Nos. 52/91-C.E. and 56/91-C.E. were only amending notifications and they amended Notification No. 47/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 and Notification No. 63/87-C.E. respectively. The view taken by the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) that the respondents claim to the benefit of these amending notifications has not been challenged, is not correct. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise considered that the tracing cloth was not eligible [as also held by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)] to the benefit of Notification No. 47/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 as amended by Notification No. 56/91-C.E., dated 25-7-1991 and Notification No.63/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987 as amended by Notification No. 52/91-C.E., dated 25-7-1991. As Notification Nos. 52/91-C.E. and 56/91-C.E. were only amending notifications, they had no independent application and they are merged with the original notifications.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Shree Ram Mills Ltd. Same Subject Land Acquisition