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 Central Excise Vs. Maximaa Systems Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Maximaa Systems Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jul 05, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/24304

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 Mumbai
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

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Maximaa Systems Ltd.

Excerpt

.....the concessional rate of duty consequent on availing of modvat credit in respect of some products and simultaneously avail of full exemption of duty where modvat credit is not availed of for the others. adjudicating on the notice issued to the manufacturer, the asst. collector had held that this course of action was not permissible and if the assessee avails of concessional assessment consequent upon making available the modvat facility, he is not entitled to take complete exemption from duty with regard to any product. on appeal from this order, the commissioner (appeals) took the view relying on the decision of the tribunal in swaraj paints industries vs. cceabhilash rubber products vs.cce 1991 (56) elt 168 and that is permissible. this conclusion is challenged in this appeal.2. the respondent is absent and unrepresented and by its communication of 3.7.01 made the following points. the modvat scheme is a self contained code and is governed by the relevant rules. the small scale exemption is a separate and independent code and the two cannot be interlinked. none of the rules relating to modvat contain any requirement requiring full exemption for all the products.3. the respondent's contention is untenable. we are not concerned with the rules relating of the modvat. we are concerned with the applicability of the notification. in doing so, we have to record the condition subject to which the exemption contained in the notification is availed.4. the departmental representative cites before me the decision of the larger bench of the tribunal in kamani foods vs. cce 1995 (75) elt 202 holding that full exemption under 175/86 will not be available to manufacturer for any goods made by him if he avails of modvat credit facility for any other specified goods. the relevant words in the notification 175/86 corresponds with those of notification 1/93. the ratio of this decision would apply to the facts before me. the order of the commissioner (appeals) therefore cannot be.....

Full Judgment

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent manufacturer could avail of notification 1/93 in such a manner that it could pay the concessional rate of duty consequent on availing of modvat credit in respect of some products and simultaneously avail of full exemption of duty where modvat credit is not availed of for the others. Adjudicating on the notice issued to the manufacturer, the Asst. Collector had held that this course of action was not permissible and if the assessee avails of concessional assessment consequent upon making available the modvat facility, he is not entitled to take complete exemption from duty with regard to any product. On appeal from this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) took the view relying on the decision of the Tribunal in Swaraj Paints Industries vs. CCEAbhilash Rubber Products vs.

CCE 1991 (56) ELT 168 and that is permissible. This conclusion is challenged in this appeal.

2. The respondent is absent and unrepresented and by its communication of 3.7.01 made the following points. The modvat scheme is a self contained code and is governed by the relevant rules. The small scale exemption is a separate and independent code and the two cannot be interlinked. None of the rules relating to modvat contain any requirement requiring full exemption for all the products.

3. The respondent's contention is untenable. We are not concerned with the rules relating of the modvat. We are concerned with the applicability of the notification. In doing so, we have to record the condition subject to which the exemption contained in the notification is availed.

4. The departmental representative cites before me the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal in Kamani Foods vs. CCE 1995 (75) ELT 202 holding that full exemption under 175/86 will not be available to manufacturer for any goods made by him if he avails of modvat credit facility for any other specified goods. The relevant words in the notification 175/86 corresponds with those of notification 1/93. The ratio of this decision would apply to the facts before me. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) therefore cannot be accepted.

5. The appeal is allowed and impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside. The order of the Asst. Commissioner is restored.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial