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. Pycom Industries

Cce vs Pycom Industries

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Nov 18, 2003
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/33110

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 Mumbai
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

Pycom Industries

Legal References

Reported In
(2004)(113)LC783Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the respondents herein are holders of central excise registration, availing facility of modvat. they have filed a classification list with effect from 1.4.1993 which was approved by the proper officer granting the benefit of simultaneous availment of modvat facility and ssi exemption under notification 1/93 dated 28.2.1993. this was objected to by the revenue; however the commissioner (appeals), before whom the department preferred an appeal, held that since the lower authority, whose order was challenged by the revenue, followed the earlier decision of the commissioner of central excise (appeals) in order-in-appeal no. gs/404/bi/92 dated 1.9.1992, no review of such classification was permissible. hence this appeal before the tribunal.2. we find that the issue in dispute, viz., as to whether simultaneous availment of modvat credit of duty paid on goods and availment of concessional rate of duty in terms of ssi exemption are permissible, is no longer res integra as it has been settled by the decisions of the larger bench in the case of franco italian co. pvt. ltd. v. cce, mumbai-ii and ghaziabad wherein the tribunal has held that payment of duty on branded goods and availment of credit thereof will not disentitle unbraruled goods from the benefit of ssi exemption.following the ratio of the above decisions which have been followed by us recently in the case of national power scheme (appeal e/1503/97), we hold that simultaneous availment is permissible, uphold the impugned order and reject the, appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The respondents herein are holders of Central Excise registration, availing facility of modvat. They have filed a classification list with effect from 1.4.1993 which was approved by the proper officer granting the benefit of simultaneous availment of modvat facility and SSI exemption under notification 1/93 dated 28.2.1993. This was objected to by the Revenue; however the Commissioner (Appeals), before whom the department preferred an appeal, held that since the lower authority, whose order was challenged by the Revenue, followed the earlier decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in order-in-appeal No. GS/404/BI/92 dated 1.9.1992, no review of such classification was permissible. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal.

2. We find that the issue in dispute, viz., as to whether simultaneous availment of modvat credit of duty paid on goods and availment of concessional rate of duty in terms of SSI exemption are permissible, is no longer res integra as it has been settled by the decisions of the larger bench in the case of Franco Italian Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-II and Ghaziabad wherein the Tribunal has held that payment of duty on branded goods and availment of credit thereof will not disentitle unbraruled goods from the benefit of SSI exemption.

Following the ratio of the above decisions which have been followed by us recently in the case of National Power Scheme (appeal E/1503/97), we hold that simultaneous availment is permissible, uphold the impugned order and reject the, appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial