Premier Founders and Engineers Vs. Cce

Premier Founders and Engineers vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Nov 27, 2003

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/33230

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/33230
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T C.
Decided On: Nov 27, 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

Premier Founders and Engineers

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(113)LC776Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. heard both sides. the appellants manufacture iron casting. they received certain iron castings from their customers as rejected for which they filed intimation in form d-3 and also maintained a register in form v. these castings were melted arid fresh castings were remade which were classifiable under the same tariff heading 7325 as the original ones. the impugned order has been passed rejecting the claim for refund under rule 173l holding the castings received back and the new castings made after re-melting to be different classes of goods.the appellants cite several decisions in support of their claim that in similar situations refund has been allowed by the tribunal: 1. cce, bhubaneswar v. orissa cement ltd., rajgangpur .cce v. insulated conductors pvt. ltd. 2. after hearing both sides and perusal of the case records and cited case laws, i am of the view that the castings returned to the appellants and the castings re-made after re-melting can be treated as the goods of the same class and hence the appellants are entitled to refund under rule 173l. as such, i set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. Heard both sides. The appellants manufacture iron casting. They received certain iron castings from their customers as rejected for which they filed intimation in Form D-3 and also maintained a register in Form V. These castings were melted arid fresh castings were remade which were classifiable under the same tariff heading 7325 as the original ones. The impugned order has been passed rejecting the claim for refund under Rule 173L holding the castings received back and the new castings made after re-melting to be different classes of goods.

The appellants cite several decisions in support of their claim that in similar situations refund has been allowed by the Tribunal: 1. CCE, Bhubaneswar v. Orissa Cement Ltd., Rajgangpur .CCE v. Insulated Conductors Pvt. Ltd. 2. After hearing both sides and perusal of the case records and cited case laws, I am of the view that the castings returned to the appellants and the castings re-made after re-melting can be treated as the goods of the same class and hence the appellants are entitled to refund under Rule 173L. As such, I set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Premier Founders and Engineers vs Cce Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S T C.