Patodia Polytex Ltd. and Patodia Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Patodia Polytex Ltd. and Patodia vs Commissioner of Central Excise

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

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/22350

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/22350
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Apr 20, 2001
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Patodia Polytex Ltd. and Patodia

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

1. the question for consideration in these appeals is whether, in calculating the value of clearances made by the appellant for the purposes of notification 1/93, it is the date on which the textured polyester yarn manufactured by the appellant was notified as being eligible for the benefit of the notification, or the date on which the appellant opted for the notification, that is to be reckoned.2. this issue has been decided by the madras bench of the tribunal in cce, coimbatore vs. sri kumaran spinners pvt. ltd. 1997 (73) ecr 894 holding that it is the clearances from the date on which the manufacturer opts for the exemption that should be reckoned.3. we therefore allow these appeals and set aside the impugned order.consequential relief according to law.

Full Judgment

1. The question for consideration in these appeals is whether, in calculating the value of clearances made by the appellant for the purposes of notification 1/93, it is the date on which the textured polyester yarn manufactured by the appellant was notified as being eligible for the benefit of the notification, or the date on which the appellant opted for the notification, that is to be reckoned.

2. This issue has been decided by the Madras bench of the Tribunal in CCE, Coimbatore Vs. Sri Kumaran Spinners Pvt. Ltd. 1997 (73) ECR 894 holding that it is the clearances from the date on which the manufacturer opts for the exemption that should be reckoned.

3. We therefore allow these appeals and set aside the impugned order.

Consequential relief according to law.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Patodia Polytex Ltd. and Patodia vs Commissioner of Central E... Same Subject MRTP