Dutron Plastics Vs. Ccex, Boroda

Dutron Plastics vs Ccex, Boroda

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jul 14, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/24481

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/24481
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Jul 14, 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

Dutron Plastics

Respondent

Ccex, Boroda

Excerpt

1. the application is for stay of operation of the commissioner (appeals)'s order. the two contention of the counsel for the applicant are that in his earlier order passed on appeal filed by the assessee, the commissioner (appeals) had set aside a part of the order of the asst. commissioner denying part of the refund claimed by the manufacture. subsequently he has passed another order, accepting the department's appeal against the same order of the asst. commissioner, relating to that part of the refund which the asst. commission allowed, and expressing a view directly contrary to the view expressed earlier.he also contends that the issue in question is covered by the decision of the tribunal in thermon heat tracers ltd. vs. cce (appeal e/1403/96 and the order of the madras high court in addison & co. vs. cce 2001 (129) elt 44.2. this appeal has thrown up an important and recurring question as to the remedies available to the parties in a situation when the commissioner (appeals) first allows the appeal of the assessee against the order of the asst. commissioner and later on has to deal with an appeal (which may or may not have been filed before the assessee's appeal) of the department against the same order.3. accordingly we have thought it admissible to list the appeal itself for hearing on 3.9.2001.

Full Judgment

1. The application is for stay of operation of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. The two contention of the counsel for the applicant are that in his earlier order passed on appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside a part of the order of the Asst. Commissioner denying part of the refund claimed by the manufacture. Subsequently he has passed another order, accepting the department's appeal against the same order of the Asst. Commissioner, relating to that part of the refund which the Asst. Commission allowed, and expressing a view directly contrary to the view expressed earlier.

He also contends that the issue in question is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in Thermon Heat Tracers Ltd. vs. CCE (appeal E/1403/96 and the order of the Madras High Court in Addison & Co. vs. CCE 2001 (129) ELT 44.

2. This appeal has thrown up an important and recurring question as to the remedies available to the parties in a situation when the Commissioner (Appeals) first allows the appeal of the assessee against the order of the Asst. Commissioner and later on has to deal with an appeal (which may or may not have been filed before the assessee's appeal) of the department against the same order.

3. Accordingly we have thought it admissible to list the appeal itself for hearing on 3.9.2001.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Dutron Plastics vs Ccex, Boroda Same Subject Service Tax