Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Rigicut Tools Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise, vs Rigicut Tools Pvt. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 01, 2002

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/27434

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/27434
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S T G.R., S Kang
Decided On: Feb 01, 2002
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Respondent

Rigicut Tools Pvt. Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(141)ELT487TriDel

Excerpt

1. revenue filed this application for rectification of mistake in the final order no. 466/2001-b, dated 24-9-2001.3. the contention of the revenue is that section 11a of the central excise act amended retrospectively by section 110 of finance act, 2000 and in view of this amendment the demand can be made for the past period.4. we find no dispute in the legal proposition mentioned in the present application but the facts of the present case are different. in the final order, after considering the evidence on record it was held that as the applicants were specifically declaring the availment of the circular in classification list, therefore, no suppression can be alleged against the applicants. in respect of this finding, no averment is made in the present application. the demand can be made after extending the period of limitation provided under section 11a of the central excise act, if there is any suppression, mis-statement etc. on the part of the manufacturer. in the present case, as there is no suppression on the part of the applicant, therefore, we find no mistake apparent on record in the final order. hence the application is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. Revenue filed this application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order No. 466/2001-B, dated 24-9-2001.

3. The contention of the Revenue is that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act amended retrospectively by Section 110 of Finance Act, 2000 and in view of this amendment the demand can be made for the past period.

4. We find no dispute in the legal proposition mentioned in the present application but the facts of the present case are different. In the final order, after considering the evidence on record it was held that as the applicants were specifically declaring the availment of the circular in classification list, therefore, no suppression can be alleged against the applicants. In respect of this finding, no averment is made in the present application. The demand can be made after extending the period of limitation provided under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, if there is any suppression, mis-statement etc. on the part of the manufacturer. In the present case, as there is no suppression on the part of the applicant, therefore, we find no mistake apparent on record in the final order. Hence the application is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise, vs Rigicut Tools Pvt. Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S T G.R., S Kang