Hajoori and Sons Vs. Cc Ex.

Hajoori and Sons vs Cc Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Dec 12, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/33429

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/33429
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: K Usha, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Dec 12, 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

Hajoori and Sons

Respondent

Cc Ex.

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(170)ELT370Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. in this appeal at the instance of the revenue two issues raised namely; jurisdiction and inclusion of rental charges on bottles & wooden crates in the assessable value. as regards the jurisdiction, we find that as far as the rules for the relevant period are concerned, it was the commissioner (appeals), vadodara who had the jurisdiction as per rule 2 (5)(iia) (c) of the central excise rules. the reliance placed by the revenue on an office order dated 31.12.97 reallocating the jurisdiction to commissioner (a), mumbai iii cannot have any effect so long as the rule is not amended. the issue regarding rental charges on bottles and wooden crates is covered against the revenue by the decisions of the supreme court in vijayawada bottling co. ltd. v. cce gunturvishal beverages (p) ltd. and ors. v. cce indore 1999(34) rlt 715 (cegat) against the revenue.2. in the appeal filed by the assessee challenge is against inclusion of notional interest on deposits in the assessable value of the goods cleared. this issue is already covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the supreme court in vst industries ltd. v. cce hyderabad 1998(97) elt 395(sc).3. in the light of the above, we dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue and allow the appeal filed by the assessee.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal at the instance of the Revenue two issues raised namely; jurisdiction and inclusion of rental charges on bottles & wooden crates in the assessable value. As regards the jurisdiction, we find that as far as the rules for the relevant period are concerned, it was the Commissioner (Appeals), Vadodara who had the jurisdiction as per Rule 2 (5)(iia) (c) of the Central Excise Rules. The reliance placed by the Revenue on an office order dated 31.12.97 reallocating the jurisdiction to Commissioner (A), Mumbai III cannot have any effect so long as the Rule is not amended. The issue regarding rental charges on bottles and wooden crates is covered against the Revenue by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Vijayawada Bottling Co. Ltd. v. CCE GunturVishal Beverages (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. CCE Indore 1999(34) RLT 715 (CEGAT) against the Revenue.

2. In the appeal filed by the assessee challenge is against inclusion of notional interest on deposits in the assessable value of the goods cleared. This issue is already covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Supreme Court in VST Industries Ltd. v. CCE Hyderabad 1998(97) ELT 395(SC).

3. In the light of the above, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue and allow the appeal filed by the assessee.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Hajoori and Sons vs Cc Ex. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge K Usha, N T C.N.B.