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.

Aarti Steels Ltd. Vs. Cce

Aarti Steels Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 11, 2004
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/34090

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 Delhi
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

Aarti Steels Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Excerpt

1. in this appeal filed by the revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal the issue relates to the denial of modvat credit to the respondents on the inputs utilised in the manufacture of alloy and non-alloy steel wires.2. the revenue has sought to deny the modvat credit on the ground that non-alloy steel wires were cleared by the respondents under ct-2 certificates to the cycle tyre manufacturer who exported the tyres under the bond at nil rate of duty. but on this very ground the credit for the earlier period was also sought to be denied to the respondents by the department and the same was not accepted by the tribunal, vide final order no. a/58/2001/nb dated 12.1.2001. the validity of that order was challenged by the department by moving a reference application before the hon'ble high court. but the said application was rejected. thereafter the department approached the hon'ble supreme court in slp (cc 8533). but the same had been also rejected. the learned counsel has placed on record copy of the apex court order. the learned commissioner (appeals) had, therefore, rightly followed the above said earlier order of the tribunal rendered in the respondent's own case allowing the modvat credit to the respondents under similar circumstances. therefore, i do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals) and the same is upheld. the cross-objections of the respondents accordingly also stands disposed of. the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal the issue relates to the denial of modvat credit to the respondents on the inputs utilised in the manufacture of alloy and non-alloy steel wires.

2. The Revenue has sought to deny the modvat credit on the ground that non-alloy steel wires were cleared by the respondents under CT-2 certificates to the cycle tyre manufacturer who exported the tyres under the bond at nil rate of duty. But on this very ground the credit for the earlier period was also sought to be denied to the respondents by the Department and the same was not accepted by the Tribunal, vide Final Order No. A/58/2001/NB dated 12.1.2001. the validity of that order was challenged by the Department by moving a reference application before the Hon'ble High Court. But the said application was rejected. Thereafter the Department approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (CC 8533). But the same had been also rejected. The learned Counsel has placed on record copy of the Apex Court order. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) had, therefore, rightly followed the above said earlier order of the Tribunal rendered in the respondent's own case allowing the modvat credit to the respondents under similar circumstances. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same is upheld. The cross-objections of the respondents accordingly also stands disposed of. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial