Hygiene Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Hygiene Pvt. Ltd. vs C.C.E.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jan 21, 2004

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/33871

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/33871
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, a T V.K.
Decided On: Jan 21, 2004
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

Hygiene Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

C.C.E.

Excerpt

1. appellants filed these appeals against the adjudication orders passed by the commissioner of central excise. as the common issue is involved in both the appeals, therefore, the both appeals are taken up together.3. appellants are engaged in the activity of cutting of rolls of aluminium foils and rolls of tissue paper of making aluminium foils, toilet rolls face tissue and tissue napkin.4. the demand was confirmed on the ground that processes undertaken by the appellants on rolls of aluminium foil and on tissue papers amounts to manufacture.5. we find that the above issue is settled by the tribunal in the case of s.r. foils ltd. vs. commissioner of central excise, new delhi, reported in 2002-taxindiaonline-75-cestat-del and s.r. tissues pvt.ltd. vs. commissioner of central excise, new delhi, reported in 2002-taxindiaonline-76-cestat-del. the tribunal in the above decisions held that cutting of jumbo rolls of aluminium foils into smaller rolls and cutting of jumbo rolls of tissues into smaller sizes does not amount of manufacture. in view of the above decisions of the tribunal, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed.

Full Judgment

1. Appellants filed these appeals against the adjudication orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. As the common issue is involved in both the appeals, therefore, the both appeals are taken up together.

3. Appellants are engaged in the activity of cutting of Rolls of Aluminium Foils and Rolls of Tissue Paper of making Aluminium Foils, Toilet Rolls Face Tissue and Tissue Napkin.

4. The demand was confirmed on the ground that processes undertaken by the appellants on Rolls of Aluminium Foil and on Tissue papers amounts to manufacture.

5. We find that the above issue is settled by the Tribunal in the case of S.R. Foils Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, reported in 2002-TAXINDIAONLINE-75-CESTAT-DEL and S.R. Tissues Pvt.

Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, reported in 2002-TAXINDIAONLINE-76-CESTAT-DEL. The Tribunal in the above decisions held that cutting of jumbo rolls of Aluminium Foils into smaller rolls and cutting of Jumbo rolls of Tissues into smaller sizes does not amount of manufacture. In view of the above decisions of the Tribunal, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Hygiene Pvt. Ltd. vs C.C.E. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S Kang, a T V.K.