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.

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Doaba Steel Rolling Mills

Collector of Central Excise vs Doaba Steel Rolling Mills

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jun 16, 2000
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/18484

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
Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Doaba Steel Rolling Mills

Legal References

Reported In
(2000)(119)ELT748TriDel

Excerpt

1. the above application under section 35g(1) of the central excise act has been preferred by the revenue for reference of the following question of law stated to have arisen out of tribunal's final order dated 1-1-1998: "whether the hon'ble cegat is correct in extending the deemed credit benefit under ministry's order no. ts/36/94-tru, dated 1-3-1994 to a unit availing of exemption in terms of notification no. 1/93-c.e., dated 28-2-1993 even after it crosses the exemption limit of rs. 75 lakhs and starts paying duty at the normal rate?" 2. vide the final order, the tribunal held that deemed credit under the ministry of finance (department of revenue) order dated 1-3-1994 continues to be admissible to the respondents which is a ssi unit even after it had exceeded the exemption ceiling of rs. 75 lakhs, following the decision in the case of collector of central excise v. shri venkateshwara steel industries 3. on hearing both sides and noting that the larger bench of the tribunal has recently held in its decision in the case of digambar foundry and ors. reported in 2000 (38) rlt 435 that deemed credit will not be admissible to units after they cross the exemption ceiling, i am of the view that a question of law requiring reference does arise and hence refer the question as framed to the hon'ble punjab and haryana high court at chandigarh for its considered opinion.

Full Judgment

1. The above application under section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act has been preferred by the Revenue for reference of the following question of law stated to have arisen out of Tribunal's Final Order dated 1-1-1998: "Whether the Hon'ble CEGAT is correct in extending the deemed credit benefit under Ministry's Order No. TS/36/94-TRU, dated 1-3-1994 to a unit availing of exemption in terms of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993 even after it crosses the exemption limit of Rs. 75 lakhs and starts paying duty at the normal rate?" 2. Vide the Final Order, the Tribunal held that deemed credit under the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) order dated 1-3-1994 continues to be admissible to the respondents which is a SSI Unit even after it had exceeded the exemption ceiling of Rs. 75 lakhs, following the decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Shri Venkateshwara Steel Industries 3. On hearing both sides and noting that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has recently held in its decision in the case of Digambar Foundry and Ors. reported in 2000 (38) RLT 435 that deemed credit will not be admissible to Units after they cross the exemption ceiling, I am of the view that a question of law requiring reference does arise and hence refer the question as framed to the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh for its considered opinion.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial