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.

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Bhansali Engg. Polymers Ltd.

Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Bhansali Engg. Polymers Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 20, 2000
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/19792

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

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Respondent

Bhansali Engg. Polymers Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(2002)(146)ELT546TriDel

Excerpt

1. revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals). in the impugned order, the commissioner (appeals), after relying upon the decision of the tribunal in the case of bhansali engg. polymers ltd., vide final order no. 925/99-c, dated 13-10-99 [1999 (114) e.l.t. 947 (tribunal)], held that the samples drawn before the rg i stage, are not liable for central excise duty.3. the revenue filed this appeal only on the ground that the appeal has been filed against the earlier decision of the tribunal, but the revenue has not produced any order setting aside or modifying the earlier order of the tribunal. in the absence of any contrary decision, produced by the revenue, we find no infirmity in the impugned order.the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals), after relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhansali Engg. Polymers Ltd., vide Final Order No. 925/99-C, dated 13-10-99 [1999 (114) E.L.T. 947 (Tribunal)], held that the samples drawn before the RG I stage, are not liable for central excise duty.

3. The Revenue filed this appeal only on the ground that the appeal has been filed against the earlier decision of the Tribunal, but the Revenue has not produced any order setting aside or modifying the earlier order of the Tribunal. In the absence of any contrary decision, produced by the Revenue, we find no infirmity in the impugned order.

The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial