Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Century Rayon

Commissioner of Central Excise, vs Century Rayon

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 20, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/25830

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/25830
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Sep 20, 2001
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Respondent

Century Rayon

Excerpt

1. in the order impugned in the appeal, the commissioner (appeals) has held that the respondent was entitled to be granted permission under sub-rule (2) of rule 57f for sending craft paper to job worker for conversion into boxes, which it required for packing the yarn that it manufactured.2. the provisions of law requiring such permission are no longer in force. the respondent, at the present time, does not require such permission. commissioner (appeals) allowing or denying such permission would not be relevant for either side. however, i not that, in any event, the commissioner (appeals) order is correct. she has rightly applied the ratio of the decision of the madras high court in ponds (india) ltd v. cce 1993 (63) elt 3 on the identical issue. while the department's appeal talks at length what the intermediate product is, it does not even seek to answer this point.

Full Judgment

1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the respondent was entitled to be granted permission under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57F for sending craft paper to job worker for conversion into boxes, which it required for packing the yarn that it manufactured.

2. The provisions of law requiring such permission are no longer in force. The respondent, at the present time, does not require such permission. Commissioner (Appeals) allowing or denying such permission would not be relevant for either side. However, I not that, in any event, the Commissioner (Appeals) order is correct. She has rightly applied the ratio of the decision of the Madras High Court in Ponds (India) Ltd v. CCE 1993 (63) ELT 3 on the identical issue. While the department's appeal talks at length what the intermediate product is, it does not even seek to answer this point.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise, vs Century Rayon Same Subject Excise