Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Perfect Stoneware Pipes

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Perfect Stoneware Pipes

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jan 28, 2002

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/27370

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/27370
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, a T V.K.
Decided On: Jan 28, 2002
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

Perfect Stoneware Pipes

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(80)ECC543

Excerpt

1. revenue filed these appeals against the common order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals).2. when the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents.respondents made a request for adjournment. as we find that the issue is already covered by the decision of the hon'ble gujarat high court in the case of ahmedabad electricity co. ltd. v. union of india, reported in 2001 (131) e.l.t. 535 (guj.), the request for adjournment is declined.4. the commissioner (appeals) in the impugned order held that coal ash (cinder) is not a manufactured excisable product liable to central excise duty. learned commissioner relied upon the decision of the tribunal in the case of shaw wallace gelatines ltd. v. commissioner of central excise, indore, 5. the contention of the revenue is that the decision of the tribunal in the case of shaw wallace gelatines ltd. relied upon by the commissioner (appeals) is not accepted by the revenue and revenue has decided to file appeal before the hon'ble supreme court.6. further, we find that hon'ble gujarat high court in the case of ahmedabad electricity co. ltd. v. union of india, reported in 2001 (131) e.l.t. 535 (guj.) also held that coal ash (cinder) obtained by burning of coal in boiler as residue of burnt up coal and cannot be said to be excisable goods. in view of the above decision of the hon'ble high court, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. the appeals filed by the revenue are rejected.

Full Judgment

1. Revenue filed these appeals against the common order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Respondents made a request for adjournment. As we find that the issue is already covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. 535 (Guj.), the request for adjournment is declined.

4. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that Coal ash (cinder) is not a manufactured excisable product liable to Central Excise duty. Learned Commissioner relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shaw Wallace Gelatines Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, 5. The contention of the Revenue is that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shaw Wallace Gelatines Ltd. relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not accepted by the Revenue and Revenue has decided to file appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6. Further, we find that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. 535 (Guj.) also held that Coal ash (cinder) obtained by burning of coal in boiler as residue of burnt up coal and cannot be said to be excisable goods. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble High Court, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Perfect Stoneware Pipes Same Subject Excise Same Judge S Kang, a T V.K.