Mayur Value Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Mayur Value Co. vs Commissioner of C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Oct 16, 2003

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/32720

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/32720
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: K Kumar, S T C.
Decided On: Oct 16, 2003
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

Mayur Value Co.

Respondent

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Legal References

Reported In: (2003)(158)ELT620Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. we have heard both sides and perused the case records, shri s.r.patanakar, learned advocate appearing for the appellants states that the appellants are not claiming exemption under notification no. 217/86 but under notification no. 1/93. he further submits that the impugned goods, classifiable under heading 84.81, are eligible for exemption under the said notification no. 1/93 and since these have been consumed as inputs within the appellants' factory for further manufacture of finished goods, their value of clearance is also required to be excluded under explanation vi to the said notification no. 1/93. we find force in the contention of the appellants and their claim to exemption under notification 1/93 requires to be examined independent of the notification no. 217/86. as such, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case for de novo decision after affording the appellants a reasonable opportunity of hearing.2. the appeal is allowed by way of remand. the order of remand was pronounced on the date of hearing of the appeal on 1-11-2002.

Full Judgment

1. We have heard both sides and perused the case records, Shri S.R.Patanakar, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the appellants are not claiming exemption under Notification No. 217/86 but under Notification No. 1/93. He further submits that the impugned goods, classifiable under Heading 84.81, are eligible for exemption under the said Notification No. 1/93 and since these have been consumed as inputs within the appellants' factory for further manufacture of finished goods, their value of clearance is also required to be excluded under Explanation VI to the said Notification No. 1/93. We find force in the contention of the appellants and their claim to exemption under Notification 1/93 requires to be examined independent of the Notification No. 217/86. As such, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case for de novo decision after affording the appellants a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

2. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. The order of remand was pronounced on the date of hearing of the appeal on 1-11-2002.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Mayur Value Co. vs Commissioner of C. Ex. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge K Kumar, S T C.