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.

Vaman Prestressing Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Vaman Prestressing Co. Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Feb 28, 2000
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/17761

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

Vaman Prestressing Co. Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In
(2000)(93)LC556Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. since the question for consideration in this appeal is directly covered by a supreme court's judgement, we proceed to take up the appeal after waiving deposit.2. the question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is a job worker who manufactured prestressed concrete sleepers out of raw materials supplied by the indian railways and returned finished product to the railways, was entitled in determining the assessable value of these goods in terms of the applicable rule 6(b)(ii) of the central excise valuation rules, was eligible not to include modvat credit of the duty paid by a manufacturer on the mild steel inserts, which was used in the manufacture of the steel goods.3. in the impugned order, the commissioner (appeals)'s has relied upon the judgment of the supreme court in cce bangalore v. mysore paper mills ltd. and kirloskar brothers . however this reliance is entirely misplaced. the supreme court's contention was drawn to the judgments in the appeal before it from the tribunal's order resulted in this judgment in cce v.dai ichi karkaria . after considering these judgements, the supreme court has confirmed the finding of the tribunal, the appeal to that court, that a job worker in determining the assessable value of the goods under rule 6(b)(ii) is not required to include elements of duty paid on any of the material used by manufacturer is finished goods. no reason is apparent in the orders of the commissioner (appeals) or the assistant commissioner why the judgment should not apply to the finding of the case.

Full Judgment

1. Since the question for consideration in this appeal is directly covered by a Supreme Court's judgement, we proceed to take up the appeal after waiving deposit.

2. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is a job worker who manufactured prestressed concrete sleepers out of raw materials supplied by the Indian Railways and returned finished product to the railways, was entitled in determining the assessable value of these goods in terms of the applicable Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, was eligible not to include modvat credit of the duty paid by a manufacturer on the mild steel inserts, which was used in the manufacture of the steel goods.

3. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals)'s has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CCE Bangalore v. Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. and Kirloskar Brothers . However this reliance is entirely misplaced. The Supreme Court's contention was drawn to the judgments in the appeal before it from the Tribunal's order resulted in this Judgment in CCE v.Dai Ichi Karkaria . After considering these judgements, the Supreme Court has confirmed the finding of the Tribunal, the appeal to that court, that a job worker in determining the assessable value of the goods under Rule 6(b)(ii) is not required to include elements of duty paid on any of the material used by manufacturer is finished goods. No reason is apparent in the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Assistant Commissioner why the Judgment should not apply to the finding of the case.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial