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.

Aditya Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Aditya Polymers Ltd. vs Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 20, 2000
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/17902

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
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

Aditya Polymers Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Legal References

Reported In
(2002)(146)ELT321Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. in this application for early hearing, the claim made is that the issue stands settled. in this regard, reference is made to order no.c-ii/2055/99-wzb, dated 14-8-1999 (cce, ahmed-abad v. jagdamba polymers ltd.). on perusal, we find it to be so and therefore, the appeal is taken up for disposal.2. the appellants were consuming captively hope tapes in the manufacture of fabrics and sacks. their refund claim was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. the commissioner (appeals) having upheld the same, the present appeal is filed.2. the commissioner in upholding the dismissal has observed that the judgment of bombay high court in the case of solar pesticides [1992 (57) e.l.t. 201 (bom.)] has been challenged by the department before the supreme court. in the cited order in paragraph 4, the tribunal has observed as under :-assistant collector of customs v. east anglia plastics (india) ltd. [1994 (74) e.l.t. 29 (cal.)] have also held in the same way as the bombay high court in the case of solar pesticides (p) ltd. v. union of india. the supreme court has dismissed an appeal filed by the department on identical ground in the case of international conveyors [1996 (88) e.l.t. a165]. all these judgments were considered by the tribunal in the case of commissioner of customs & central excise, chandigarh v. r.k. machine tools pvt. ltd. [1998 (103) e.l.t. 689 (tribunal)]. in this judgment also the tribunal had followed the ratio of the solar pesticides case." 3. consequently, the present appeal is allowed. the concerned authorities are, however, entitled to examine whether the contested goods were, in fact, used captively in the manufacture of final products.

Full Judgment

1. In this application for early hearing, the claim made is that the issue stands settled. In this regard, reference is made to Order No.C-II/2055/99-WZB, dated 14-8-1999 (CCE, Ahmed-abad v. Jagdamba Polymers Ltd.). On perusal, we find it to be so and therefore, the appeal is taken up for disposal.

2. The appellants were consuming captively HOPE tapes in the manufacture of fabrics and sacks. Their refund claim was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) having upheld the same, the present appeal is filed.

2. The Commissioner in upholding the dismissal has observed that the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Solar Pesticides [1992 (57) E.L.T. 201 (Bom.)] has been challenged by the department before the Supreme Court. In the cited order in paragraph 4, the Tribunal has observed as under :-Assistant Collector of Customs v. East Anglia Plastics (India) Ltd. [1994 (74) E.L.T. 29 (Cal.)] have also held in the same way as the Bombay High Court in the case of Solar Pesticides (P) Ltd. v. Union of India.

The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the department on identical ground in the case of International Conveyors [1996 (88) E.L.T. A165]. All these judgments were considered by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh v. R.K. Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. [1998 (103) E.L.T. 689 (Tribunal)]. In this judgment also the Tribunal had followed the ratio of the Solar Pesticides case." 3. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The concerned authorities are, however, entitled to examine whether the contested goods were, in fact, used captively in the manufacture of final products.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial