Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. Sharda Texturing Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise and vs Sharda Texturing Pvt. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 20, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/21606

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/21606
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Mar 20, 2001
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise and

Respondent

Sharda Texturing Pvt. Ltd.

Excerpt

1. the appeal is against the order of the commissioner (appeals) holding that in computing, for the purpose of notification 1/93, the value of clearances of the manufacture, it is the date on which the manufacturer opted to avail of the notification that should be reckoned and not, as the department proposed, from the commencement of the financial year for which the notification is claimed.2. we have heard the departmental representative. respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice.3. this issue has been decided by the larger bench of the tribunal in ramakrishna engineering works vs. cce 1996 (83) elt 346. the tribunal has held that the words 'first clearances' occurring in the notification refer to clearances from the commencement of the financial year. there is no basis for the commissioner (appeals) view that since the manufacturer elected to avail of the notification in the middle of the financial year (although it was available at the commencement of the financial year), the prior clearances must be ignored.4. we therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the commissioner (appeals) and restore the assistant commissioner's order demanding duty.

Full Judgment

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that in computing, for the purpose of notification 1/93, the value of clearances of the manufacture, it is the date on which the manufacturer opted to avail of the notification that should be reckoned and not, as the department proposed, from the commencement of the financial year for which the notification is claimed.

2. We have heard the departmental representative. Respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice.

3. This issue has been decided by the larger bench of the Tribunal in Ramakrishna Engineering Works Vs. CCE 1996 (83) ELT 346. The Tribunal has held that the words 'first clearances' occurring in the notification refer to clearances from the commencement of the financial year. There is no basis for the Commissioner (Appeals) view that since the manufacturer elected to avail of the notification in the middle of the financial year (although it was available at the commencement of the financial year), the prior clearances must be ignored.

4. We therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the Assistant Commissioner's order demanding duty.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise and vs Sharda Texturing Pvt. Ltd. Same Subject Land Acquisition