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 Customs and Vs. Power Engg. Corpn., J.K. Group of

Commissioner of Customs and vs Power Engg. Corpn., J.K. Group of

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Aug 07, 2001
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/24860

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 Customs and

Respondent

Power Engg. Corpn., J.K. Group of

Excerpt

1. these four appeals from the revenue have common facts and are disposed of vide this single order. none of the respondents was present.2. certain manufacturers were receiving parts of i.c. engine without payment of duty in terms of a notification, following the provisions of chapter x. that notification having been withdrawn, duty was demanded and confirmed on such goods lying in stock at the recipient manufacturer's factory. the commissioner (appeals) upheld the confirmation but permitted the modvat credit to be utilised of the duty paid on such inputs, when used in the manufacture of final goods. in these appeals revenue is agitating this permission on the ground that assessees would not be eligible to do so unless they had filed declarations under rule 57g which was mandatory in terms of tribunal judgment in the case of p.g.conductors vs. collector of central excise, jaipur [1996 (81) eit 336 (tribunal)].3. one of the respondents has placed before us tribunal's order no.c-1/503-10/wzb/2001 in which appeals filed by the revenue on the same grounds was dismissed relying upon the tribunal judgment in the case of roche products ltd. vs. cce [1995 (78) elt 127]. following the ratio of these judgments we dismiss these appeals.

Full Judgment

1. These four appeals from the Revenue have common facts and are disposed of vide this single order. None of the respondents was present.

2. Certain manufacturers were receiving parts of I.C. Engine without payment of duty in terms of a notification, following the provisions of Chapter X. That notification having been withdrawn, duty was demanded and confirmed on such goods lying in stock at the recipient manufacturer's factory. The Commissioner (appeals) upheld the confirmation but permitted the modvat credit to be utilised of the duty paid on such inputs, when used in the manufacture of final goods. In these appeals Revenue is agitating this permission on the ground that assessees would not be eligible to do so unless they had filed declarations under Rule 57G which was mandatory in terms of Tribunal Judgment in the case of P.G.Conductors Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur [1996 (81) EIT 336 (Tribunal)].

3. One of the respondents has placed before us Tribunal's order No.C-1/503-10/WZB/2001 in which appeals filed by the revenue on the same grounds was dismissed relying upon the Tribunal judgment in the case of Roche Products Ltd. Vs. CCE [1995 (78) ELT 127]. Following the ratio of these judgments we dismiss these appeals.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial