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.

Cce Vs. Dwarikadhish Spinners Ltd.

Cce vs Dwarikadhish Spinners Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Oct 13, 2003
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/32650

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
Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cce

Respondent

Dwarikadhish Spinners Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(2004)(168)ELT134TriDel

Excerpt

1. in this appeal which has been filed by the revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the benefit of the notification no. 1/95-ce dated 4.1.1995 to the respondents in respect of the goods in question (detailed in the show cause notice) used for the manufacture of false ceiling erected to reduce the space volume to effectively control the conditions for humidity and temperature for producing good quality of cotton yarn.2. i have heard both sides. the perusal of the impugned order shows that the adjudicating authority recorded specific finding that the goods in question had been utilized by the respondents to put up false ceiling in order to reduce the space volume to effectively control the conditions for humidity and temperature for producing the goods quality of cotton yarn. this finding had been affirmed by the commissioner (appeals). in the face of this findings it is difficult to observe that the goods were not brought in the factory in connection with the manufacture of the final products so as to deny the benefit of notification no. 1/95-ce, detailed above, which granted exemption from duty to the 100% eou on the capital goods brought by them in the factory in connection with the manufacture of the final products. the learned commissioner (appeals) has also followed the ratio of the law laid down in the case of (i) shri rama spinner (p) ltd. vs. cce 2002 (48) rlt 445; (ii) gonterrmann peipers (india) ltd. vs cce 2003 (54) rlt 649; (3) pearl polymers ltd vs. cce, 2002 (48) rlt 694; and (iv) m/s. jawahar mills ltd. vs cce, 1999 (108) elt 47. no law to the contrary has been brought to the notice of the bench.3. the impugned order, in my view, passed by the commissioner (appeals) is perfectly valied and the same is upheld. the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal which has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the benefit of the Notification No. 1/95-CE dated 4.1.1995 to the respondents in respect of the goods in question (detailed in the show cause notice) used for the manufacture of false ceiling erected to reduce the space volume to effectively control the conditions for humidity and temperature for producing good quality of cotton yarn.

2. I have heard both sides. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the adjudicating authority recorded specific finding that the goods in question had been utilized by the respondents to put up false ceiling in order to reduce the space volume to effectively control the conditions for humidity and temperature for producing the goods quality of cotton yarn. This finding had been affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the face of this findings it is difficult to observe that the goods were not brought in the factory in connection with the manufacture of the final products so as to deny the benefit of notification No. 1/95-Ce, detailed above, which granted exemption from duty to the 100% EOU on the capital goods brought by them in the factory in connection with the manufacture of the final products. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also followed the ratio of the law laid down in the case of (i) Shri Rama Spinner (P) Ltd. vs. CCE 2002 (48) RLT 445; (ii) Gonterrmann Peipers (India) Ltd. Vs CCE 2003 (54) RLT 649; (3) Pearl Polymers Ltd vs. CCE, 2002 (48) RLT 694; and (iv) M/s. Jawahar Mills Ltd. vs CCE, 1999 (108) ELT 47. No law to the contrary has been brought to the notice of the Bench.

3. The impugned order, in my view, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is perfectly valied and the same is upheld. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial