Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Rajesh Strips Ltd. Vs. Cce

Rajesh Strips Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Aug 01, 2002
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/28637

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge
Decided On
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

Rajesh Strips Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In
(2002)(83)ECC67

Excerpt

1. though the matter is posted today for hearing the stay petition, filed by m/s. rajesh strips ltd., after granting the stay we take up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both the sides since the matter stands settled by the decision of the tribunal in the case of m/s. vandana ispat pvt. ltd. v. cce, raipur 2002 (82) ecc 593 (t) (final order no. 239/2002-b dated 23.5.2002).2. we heard shri ghirnikar, learned consultant for the appellants, and shri m.p singh, learned dr for the respondent. the issue involved in the appeal is whether the benefit of exemption provided under notification no. 50/97-ce dated 1.8.1997 as amended by notification no.57/97-ce, dated 30.8.97 is available to the excisable goods manufactured by them. the commissioner, central excise, under the impugned order has disallowed the benefit of exemption under notification no. 50/97-ce as amended on the ground that the appellants were not discharging duty liability under section 3a of the central excise act. the tribunal in the case of vandana ispat (p) ltd. 2002 (82) ecc 593 (t) has held that "by going with the word 'employed', the appellants are eligible to avail the benefit of the notification as they have satisfied all the conditions specified therein." further, this tribunal in abhishek steels ltd. v. cce, hyderabad wherein it has held that unintended supposed intention cannot be imported into the language of exemption notification and extended the benefit of notification no. 50/97 to the appellants therein who were not working under the scheme envisaged in section 3a of the act. following the ratio of the earlier decisions we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. Though the matter is posted today for hearing the Stay Petition, filed by M/s. Rajesh Strips Ltd., after granting the Stay we take up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both the sides since the matter stands settled by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Vandana Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur 2002 (82) ECC 593 (T) (Final Order No. 239/2002-B dated 23.5.2002).

2. We heard Shri Ghirnikar, learned Consultant for the Appellants, and Shri M.P Singh, learned DR for the Respondent. The issue involved in the appeal is whether the benefit of exemption provided under Notification No. 50/97-CE dated 1.8.1997 as amended by Notification No.57/97-CE, dated 30.8.97 is available to the excisable goods manufactured by them. The Commissioner, Central Excise, under the impugned Order has disallowed the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 50/97-CE as amended on the ground that the Appellants were not discharging duty liability under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal in the case of Vandana Ispat (P) Ltd. 2002 (82) ECC 593 (T) has held that "by going with the word 'employed', the Appellants are eligible to avail the benefit of the Notification as they have satisfied all the conditions specified therein." Further, this Tribunal in Abhishek Steels Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad wherein it has held that unintended supposed intention cannot be imported into the language of exemption notification and extended the benefit of Notification No. 50/97 to the Appellants therein who were not working under the scheme envisaged in Section 3A of the Act. Following the ratio of the earlier decisions we set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial