Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Arvind CotspIn Ltd.

Commissioner of Customs and vs Arvind CotspIn Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 19, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/25797

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/25797
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Sep 19, 2001
Subject: Company

Case Summary

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

Company

Key legal issue: Company

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Customs and

Respondent

Arvind CotspIn Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(145)ELT147Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the commissioner (appeals) allowed the benefit of notification 1/95-ce dated 04/01/1995 to insulating material used in humidification plant. the revenue in this appeal have challenged this order on the ground that such material is used or maintenance of capital goods and therefore does not fall under the purview of the notification.2. the humidification plant or any plant which seeks to maintain the temperature or humidity would have insulation material as an integral part. even otherwise the notification permits duty free receipt of "materials and spares thereof". even if it is accepted that such material is for maintenance, then the phrase "spares" would cover the same.3. we find the commissioner (appeals)'s order sustains and dismiss this appeal from revenue.

Full Judgment

1. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the benefit of Notification 1/95-CE dated 04/01/1995 to insulating material used in humidification plant. The Revenue in this appeal have challenged this order on the ground that such material is used or maintenance of capital goods and therefore does not fall under the purview of the notification.

2. The humidification plant or any plant which seeks to maintain the temperature or humidity would have insulation material as an integral part. Even otherwise the notification permits duty free receipt of "materials and spares thereof". Even if it is accepted that such material is for maintenance, then the phrase "spares" would cover the same.

3. We find the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order sustains and dismiss this appeal from Revenue.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Customs and vs Arvind CotspIn Ltd. Same Subject Company