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.

Navyug Laminates Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Navyug Laminates vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Sep 14, 1999
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/16743

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
Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Navyug Laminates

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(1999)(114)ELT444TriDel

Excerpt

1. the issue involved in the present appeal is dutiability of waste and scrap of plastics under notification 14/92, dated 1-3-1992 arising out of material on which modvat credit under rule 57g of the central excise rules has been availed.2. the appellants have requested to decide the case on merits in the light of the earlier decision of the tribunal on the disputed issue. we have heard ld. dr and perused the records.3. we find that notification no. 14/92 is a successor to notification 53/88, dated 1-3-1988 which granted exemption to plastic waste and scrap when arising from goods falling under chapter 39 or any other chapter of the schedule to the ceta, 1985 on which duty leviable thereon has already been paid. this notification has been considered by the tribunal and it has been held in the case of collector of central excise, allahabad v. hindustan safety glass works ltd. reported in 1997 (22) rlt 127 that benefit of notification will be available because taking credit of duty paid does not make the inputs non-duty paid.appeals of the same appellant have been allowed by the final order no.444/98-c, dated 11-6-1998 and final order no. 67/99-d, dated 11-1-1999.following the ratio of the above orders, we hold that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of notification no. 14/92. we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The issue involved in the present appeal is dutiability of waste and scrap of plastics under Notification 14/92, dated 1-3-1992 arising out of material on which Modvat credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules has been availed.

2. The appellants have requested to decide the case on merits in the light of the earlier decision of the Tribunal on the disputed issue. We have heard ld. DR and perused the records.

3. We find that Notification No. 14/92 is a successor to Notification 53/88, dated 1-3-1988 which granted exemption to plastic waste and scrap when arising from goods falling under Chapter 39 or any other Chapter of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 on which duty leviable thereon has already been paid. This Notification has been considered by the Tribunal and it has been held in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad v. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. reported in 1997 (22) RLT 127 that benefit of Notification will be available because taking credit of duty paid does not make the inputs non-duty paid.

Appeals of the same appellant have been allowed by the Final Order No.444/98-C, dated 11-6-1998 and Final Order No. 67/99-D, dated 11-1-1999.

Following the ratio of the above orders, we hold that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 14/92. We set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial