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.

S.R. Tissues P. Ltd. Vs. Cce

S.R. Tissues P. Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 19, 2004
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/34213

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

S.R. Tissues P. Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Excerpt

1. the issue involved in this appeal is whether slitting/cutting of jumbo rolls of tissue paper into smaller sizes for use as facial tissue, toilet tissues and napkins amount to manufacturer.2. we heard sh. m.p. dev nath, learned advocate for the appellants, and sh. v. valte, learned sdr.for the revenue. the learned advocate submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal has been decided by the appellate tribunal in their own case as reported in 2001 (136) 367 (t) that the commissioner (appeals), while rejecting their appeal has relied upon the order-in-original no. 21/99 dated 22.11.1999 passed by the commissioner of central excise ; that the said order has already been set aside by the tribunal and, therefore, the reliance of the commissioner (appeals) on the said order-in-original is wrong. on the other hand, the learned sdr submitted that the department has filed a slp against the tribunal's decision and the same has been admitted by the hon'ble supreme court. the learned advocate countered by submitting that no stay has been granted by the hon'ble supreme court.3. we have considered the submissions of both the sides. this tribunal in the case of the appellant themselves, i.e. s.r. tissues p. ltd. vs.cce, new delhi, 2001 (136) elt 367 (t) has held that their activity of slitting/cutting tissue paper (in jumbo rolls) to smaller size did not amount to manufacture as defined under section 2(f) of the central excise act. the revenue has not brought on record any material to show that the hon'ble supreme court has stayed the operation of the said order. we, therefore, following the said decision, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether slitting/cutting of jumbo rolls of tissue paper into smaller sizes for use as facial tissue, toilet tissues and napkins amount to manufacturer.

2. We heard Sh. M.P. Dev Nath, learned Advocate for the appellants, and Sh. V. Valte, learned SDR.for the Revenue. The learned Advocate submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal has been decided by the Appellate Tribunal in their own case as reported in 2001 (136) 367 (T) that the Commissioner (Appeals), while rejecting their appeal has relied upon the Order-in-Original No. 21/99 dated 22.11.1999 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise ; that the said order has already been set aside by the Tribunal and, therefore, the reliance of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the said Order-in-Original is wrong. On the other hand, the learned SDR submitted that the Department has filed a SLP against the Tribunal's decision and the same has been admitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned Advocate countered by submitting that no stay has been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

3. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. This Tribunal in the case of the appellant themselves, i.e. S.R. Tissues P. Ltd. Vs.

CCE, New Delhi, 2001 (136) ELT 367 (T) has held that their activity of slitting/cutting tissue paper (in Jumbo Rolls) to smaller size did not amount to manufacture as defined under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. The Revenue has not brought on record any material to show that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stayed the operation of the said order. We, Therefore, following the said decision, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial