Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Styrodync Packaging (P) Ltd.

Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Styrodync Packaging (P) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Apr 23, 2003

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/30658

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/30658
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang
Decided On: Apr 23, 2003
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 C. Ex.

Respondent

Styrodync Packaging (P) Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2003)(156)ELT233TriDel

Excerpt

2. revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals). in this case, the respondents availed the benefit of modvat credit on petroleum products after 1-3-99.respondents availed the benefit of credit on furnace oil at full rate of 15 per cent. the contention of the revenue in the present appeal is that prior to 1-3-99, the manufacturer can take credit only up to 10 per cent of the duty paid on furnace oil in view of notification no.5/94. the contention of the revenue is also that as the goods were manufactured prior to 1-3-99, the credit up to 10 per cent can be taken.3. respondents availed the credit after 1-3-99, therefore, the respondents are entitled to take credit as per rules existed on the date the credit was taken. it is admitted by the revenue that when the credit was taken and there was no restriction to avail the credit.4. in these circumstances, i find no infirmity in the impugned order, the appeal is rejected.

Full Judgment

2. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case, the respondents availed the benefit of Modvat credit on petroleum products after 1-3-99.

Respondents availed the benefit of credit on furnace oil at full rate of 15 per cent. The contention of the revenue in the present appeal is that prior to 1-3-99, the manufacturer can take credit only up to 10 per cent of the duty paid on furnace oil in view of Notification No.5/94. The contention of the revenue is also that as the goods were manufactured prior to 1-3-99, the credit up to 10 per cent can be taken.

3. Respondents availed the credit after 1-3-99, therefore, the respondents are entitled to take credit as per rules existed on the date the credit was taken. It is admitted by the revenue that when the credit was taken and there was no restriction to avail the credit.

4. In these circumstances, I find no infirmity in the impugned order, the appeal is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Styrodync Packaging (P) Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S Kang