Pick Pack Flavours Vs. Cce

Pick Pack Flavours vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 03, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/32907

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/32907
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, M T K.D.
Decided On: Nov 03, 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

Pick Pack Flavours

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(91)ECC65

Excerpt

1. the instant appeals relate to the demands of additional duty of excise (in lieu of sales tax) (a.e.d. for short) in respect of chewing tobacco cleared by the appellants during the period june 1997 to october 1998 and for march 1998. the appellants plead that they were not liable to the said duty on account of exemption from a.e.d.introduced with effect from 7.5.97 by notification no. 28/97-ce dated 7.5.95.2. we have perused the contents of the said notification. the said notification provides full exemption from a.e.d. to chewing tobacco in following terms "chewing tobacco and preparations containing chewing tobacco, other than those bearing a brand name, which are exempt from the whole of duty of excise vide notification no. 16/97-central excise dated the 1st april, 1997." the impugned demands in this case relate to that quantity of unbranded chewing tobacco which is not fully exempt from basic excise duty under notification no, 16/97-ce dated 1.4.97. under notification no. 16/97-ce first clearances upto rs. 30 lakhs are fully exempted and duty at the prescribed rates (3% or 5% as the case may be) is payable on clearance exceeding the level of rs. 30 lakhs. it is an admitted fact that the demand relates to the quantities which are subjected to duty in terms of the said notification. the appellants, however, plead that the exemption from basic duty as provided under notification no. 16/97-ce, should be read to cover a.e.d. also. we are unable to agree with the appellants. it is a well settled law that unless the exemption notification specifically refers to the other duties of excise, exemption has to be confined only to basic duty. reliance placed by the learned commissioner (appeals) on the supreme court judgment in the case of uoi v. modi rubber ltd. 1986 (10) ecc 73 (sc) : 1986 (25) elt 849 (so is quite correct and the impugned order does not call for any interference. accordingly, we reject the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The instant appeals relate to the demands of Additional Duty of Excise (in lieu of Sales Tax) (A.E.D. for short) in respect of chewing tobacco cleared by the appellants during the period June 1997 to October 1998 and for March 1998. The appellants plead that they were not liable to the said duty on account of exemption from A.E.D.introduced with effect from 7.5.97 by Notification No. 28/97-CE dated 7.5.95.

2. We have perused the contents of the said notification. The said notification provides full exemption from A.E.D. to chewing tobacco in following terms "Chewing tobacco and preparations containing chewing tobacco, other than those bearing a brand name, which are exempt from the whole of duty of excise vide Notification No. 16/97-Central Excise dated the 1st April, 1997." The impugned demands in this case relate to that quantity of unbranded chewing tobacco which is not fully exempt from basic excise duty under Notification No, 16/97-CE dated 1.4.97. Under Notification No. 16/97-CE first clearances upto Rs. 30 lakhs are fully exempted and duty at the prescribed rates (3% or 5% as the case may be) is payable on clearance exceeding the level of Rs. 30 lakhs. It is an admitted fact that the demand relates to the quantities which are subjected to duty in terms of the said notification. The appellants, however, plead that the exemption from basic duty as provided under Notification No. 16/97-CE, should be read to cover A.E.D. also. WE are unable to agree with the appellants. It is a well settled law that unless the exemption notification specifically refers to the other duties of excise, exemption has to be confined only to basic duty. Reliance placed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of UOI v. Modi Rubber Ltd. 1986 (10) ECC 73 (SC) : 1986 (25) ELT 849 (SO is quite correct and the impugned order does not call for any interference. Accordingly, we reject the appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Pick Pack Flavours vs Cce Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S Kang, M T K.D.