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.

Glorious Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Glorious Industries vs Collector of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 29, 1999
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/16312

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
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Miscellaneous

Case Summary

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

Miscellaneous

Key legal issue
Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Glorious Industries

Respondent

Collector of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(2003)(162)ELT826TriDel

Excerpt

1. m/s. glorious industries, the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of tubes and pipes of steel and were receiving the duty paid inputs, which according to the tribunal decision in the case of calcutta steel industries, mandi gobindgarh and ors. v. c.c.e., chandigarh [1991 (54) e.l.t. 90 (t)] were the bars. under notfn. no.202/88-ce., dated 20-5-88, the tubes, pipes were eligible for exemption if made from hoops, strips and flats etc. if tubes and pipes were made out of the bars, no such exemption was available.2. the collector of central excise (appeals) had held that as the in puts were bars, no exemption was available. he, however, reduced the amount of penalty from rs. 50,000/- to rs. 5,000/- (rs. five thousand only). the appellants have prayed for decision on merits.3. we have heard shri t. singh, ld. jdr and have gone, through the facts and circumstances of the case.4. the classification of the inputs received by the appellants had already been settled by the tribunal decision and the tribunal decision had become final, we agree with the view taken by the ld. collector of central excise, that the benefit of notfn. no. 202/88-c.e. was not available to the pipes and tubes made out of the bars. the collector (appeals) had reduced the amount of penalty from rs. 50,000/- to rs. 5,000/- (rs. five thousand only). as the matter stands settled by the aforesaid tribunal decision, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. M/s. Glorious Industries, the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of tubes and pipes of steel and were receiving the duty paid inputs, which according to the Tribunal decision in the case of Calcutta Steel Industries, Mandi Gobindgarh and Ors. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh [1991 (54) E.L.T. 90 (T)] were the bars. Under Notfn. No.202/88-CE., dated 20-5-88, the tubes, pipes were eligible for exemption if made from hoops, strips and flats etc. If tubes and pipes were made out of the bars, no such exemption was available.

2. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had held that as the in puts were bars, no exemption was available. He, however, reduced the amount of penalty from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only). The appellants have prayed for decision on merits.

3. We have heard Shri T. Singh, ld. JDR and have gone, through the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The classification of the inputs received by the appellants had already been settled by the Tribunal decision and the Tribunal decision had become final, we agree with the view taken by the ld. Collector of Central Excise, that the benefit of Notfn. No. 202/88-C.E. was not available to the pipes and tubes made out of the bars. The Collector (Appeals) had reduced the amount of penalty from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand only). As the matter stands settled by the aforesaid Tribunal decision, we do not find any merit in this Appeal and the same is rejected.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial