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.

S.S. Industries Vs. Cce

S.S. Industries vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Feb 24, 2000
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/17742

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 Mumbai
Judge
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

S.S. Industries

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In
(2000)(93)LC359Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the application is for waiver of deposit of duty of rs. 50,867/- demanded on the ground that applicant ought to have cleared goods without payment of duty under notification 1/93 and therefore was not entitled to take modvat credit of the inputs, which it used in the clearance of such finished product, which it cleared on payment of duty.2. advocate for the applicant cites the decision of the tribunal in everest converters v. cce 1995 (80) elt 95 : 1995 (60) ecr 670 (t) in support, while the departmental representative contends that the ratio of the decision, that the assessee has right to pay duty even if the goods are exempted, requires reconsideration.3. we have at this stage to make a distinction between an unconditional exemption and those of conditional exemption, as notification 1/93 is, the assessee himself has reason to believe rightly or wrongly that he does not satisfy the terms of the exemption and therefore he choose not to avail of. on this prima facie understanding of the matter we waive deposit of the duty and stay its recovery.4. since it was mentioned in the course of argument that the tribunal had passed final orders on this issue i.e., whether an assessee do or do not have option to avail of an exemption, it appears that therefore this matter can be decided on the basis of the said decision. advocate for the applicant seeks time to produce the tribunal's order.accordingly the appeal is listed for hearing on 28.3.2000.

Full Judgment

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 50,867/- demanded on the ground that applicant ought to have cleared goods without payment of duty under notification 1/93 and therefore was not entitled to take modvat credit of the inputs, which it used in the clearance of such finished product, which it cleared on payment of duty.

2. Advocate for the applicant cites the decision of the Tribunal in Everest Converters v. CCE 1995 (80) ELT 95 : 1995 (60) ECR 670 (T) in support, while the departmental representative contends that the ratio of the decision, that the assessee has right to pay duty even if the goods are exempted, requires reconsideration.

3. We have at this stage to make a distinction between an unconditional exemption and those of conditional exemption, as notification 1/93 is, the assessee himself has reason to believe rightly or wrongly that he does not satisfy the terms of the exemption and therefore he choose not to avail of. On this prima facie understanding of the matter we waive deposit of the duty and stay its recovery.

4. Since it was mentioned in the course of argument that the Tribunal had passed final orders on this issue i.e., whether an assessee do or do not have option to avail of an exemption, it appears that therefore this matter can be decided on the basis of the said decision. Advocate for the applicant seeks time to produce the Tribunal's order.

Accordingly the appeal is listed for hearing on 28.3.2000.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial