Cibatul Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Cibatul Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Oct 31, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/26458

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/26458
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Oct 31, 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

Cibatul Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Excerpt

1. the assessee purchased certain goods from the small scale sector and were eligible to take credit higher than what was paid by the first manufacturer. however, they initially took credit of the duty actually paid and at a later date, took the incremental credit. show cause notice were issued seeking reversal thereof. the assistant collector relied upon a trade notice and reversed the incremental credit. the collector appeals having upheld the reversal, the present appeal has been filed.2. the issue is covered by the tribunal judgment in the case of mysore lac & paint works ltd., [1991 (52) elt 590]. when it was cited before the commissioner, he chose to disagree with the decision. in doing so, he did not distinguish the ratio of the judgment. the doing so, he did not distinguish the ratio of the judgment. the law of precedence requires that an appellate authority follow a cited decision of a superior court or tribunal without demur. where the facts are identical, it is not given to him to disagree with the dictate of a superior appellate authority. the judgment suffers from this defect.the facts being identical, the ratio of the tribunal judgment would apply. the appeal, therefore, is allowed with appropriate relief.

Full Judgment

1. The Assessee purchased certain goods from the Small Scale Sector and were eligible to take credit higher than what was paid by the First Manufacturer. However, they initially took credit of the duty actually paid and at a later date, took the incremental credit. Show cause notice were issued seeking reversal thereof. The Assistant Collector relied upon a trade notice and reversed the incremental credit. The Collector appeals having upheld the reversal, the present appeal has been filed.

2. The issue is covered by the Tribunal judgment in the case of Mysore Lac & Paint Works Ltd., [1991 (52) ELT 590]. When it was cited before the Commissioner, he chose to disagree with the decision. In doing so, he did not distinguish the ratio of the judgment. The doing so, he did not distinguish the ratio of the judgment. The Law of Precedence requires that an appellate authority follow a cited decision of a superior court or Tribunal without demur. Where the facts are identical, it is not given to him to disagree with the dictate of a superior appellate authority. The judgment suffers from this defect.

The facts being identical, the ratio of the tribunal judgment would apply. The appeal, therefore, is allowed with appropriate relief.

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