Fgp Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Fgp Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 07, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/25501

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/25501
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Sep 07, 2001
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Fgp Limited

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Excerpt

1. the question to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the benefit of exemption from payment of duty in terms of serial no. 10 of the table annexed to notification 52/86 is available to resin bonded glass wool manufactured by the appellants herein. the benefit of the notification has been denied by the authorities below on the ground that the fabrics are impregnated glass fabrics and hence excluded from the benefit of the notification as per serial no. 10 itself.2. we find on hearing both sides that the very same issue, on benefit of notification in terms of serial no. 10, in assessees own case, was considered by the tribunal by the final order no. 414/2001-b dated 07/08/2001 in the appeal filed by the revenue where the commissioner (appeals) had extended the benefit of the notification to the assessee and the bench has upheld the order of the commissioner (appeals) and dismissed the revenue's appeal. the period covered by the earlier appeal is subsequent to the period covered in the present case.3. following the ratio of the earlier order, which applies to the present case, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The question to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the benefit of exemption from payment of duty in terms of serial No. 10 of the table annexed to Notification 52/86 is available to resin bonded glass wool manufactured by the appellants herein. The benefit of the notification has been denied by the authorities below on the ground that the fabrics are impregnated glass fabrics and hence excluded from the benefit of the Notification as per serial No. 10 itself.

2. We find on hearing both sides that the very same issue, on benefit of notification in terms of serial No. 10, in assessees own case, was considered by the Tribunal by the final order No. 414/2001-B dated 07/08/2001 in the appeal filed by the Revenue where the Commissioner (Appeals) had extended the benefit of the notification to the assessee and the bench has upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The period covered by the earlier appeal is subsequent to the period covered in the present case.

3. Following the ratio of the earlier order, which applies to the present case, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Fgp Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Same Subject Land Acquisition