Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Shreenath Associates

Commissioner of Central Excise, vs M/S. Shreenath Associates

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Apr 10, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/22044

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/22044
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Apr 10, 2001
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

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Respondent

M/S. Shreenath Associates

Excerpt

1. on hearing shri a. chopra for the revenue, the appeal was admitted and was taken up for disposal. the respondents were not present.2. the respondents had taken credit on the strength of endorsed gate passes. citing a tribunal judgment the assistant commissioner permitted such availment. the revenue then moved an application before the commissioner (appeals). the commissioner (appeals) cited tribunal judgment in the case of moosa haji patrawala (p) ltd. vs. cce 1996 (83) elt 620 and reiterated the supreme court's direction in kamalakshi finance corporation ltd. 1991 (55) elt 433 that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed. he also cited the judgment of the high court in the case of vishal plastics to hold that the ratio of the judgment would continue to apply even where a reference had been made to a high court on a point of law arising there from. on his dismissal of the appeal before him, the revenue have filed the present appeal.3. the sole statement made in the ground of appeal is that the moosa haji patrawala decision had not been "accepted" by the department. the appellant commissioner has not stated what legal action has been adopted by him to contest the ratio of the judgment. this appeal is filed without giving any basis. it is accordingly dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. On hearing Shri A. Chopra for the Revenue, the appeal was admitted and was taken up for disposal. The respondents were not present.

2. The respondents had taken credit on the strength of endorsed gate passes. Citing a Tribunal judgment the Assistant Commissioner permitted such availment. The Revenue then moved an application before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) cited Tribunal judgment in the case of Moosa Haji Patrawala (P) Ltd. vs. CCE 1996 (83) ELT 620 and reiterated the Supreme Court's direction in Kamalakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. 1991 (55) ELT 433 that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed. He also cited the judgment of the High Court in the case of Vishal Plastics to hold that the ratio of the judgment would continue to apply even where a reference had been made to a High Court on a point of law arising there from. On his dismissal of the appeal before him, the Revenue have filed the present appeal.

3. The sole statement made in the ground of appeal is that the Moosa Haji Patrawala decision had not been "accepted" by the department. The appellant Commissioner has not stated what legal action has been adopted by him to contest the ratio of the judgment. This appeal is filed without giving any basis. It is accordingly dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise, vs M/S. Shreenath Associates Same Subject Service Tax