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.

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Shree Jagdamba Polymers Ltd.

Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Shree Jagdamba Polymers Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 19, 2004
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/34639

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 Mumbai
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

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Respondent

Shree Jagdamba Polymers Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(2004)(170)ELT287Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. this application for stay of operation of the order of the commissioner (appeals) is filed by the revenue. heard the learned sdr and perused the records. none appeared for the respondent.2. the respondents got hdpe woven sacks manufactured through a job worker, m/s. tirupati packaging, who discharged the duty liability on the woven sacks. consequent on a cestat's decision that the woven sacks are classifiable under chapter 39 of the central excise tariff act, refund claims arose. such claims were made by the said job worker which were rejected. the appeal against such rejection is pending with the tribunal. meanwhile the present respondents claim refund for the same amount on the plea that they have borne the incidence of duty. these claims were also rejected by the assistant commissioner inter alia on the ground that the job worker's claim for refund of the same amount is pending in appeal with cestat. the respondents went in appeal to the commissioner (appeals) who allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the lower authority. the revenue is aggrieved by the order of the commissioner (appeals). hence the application for stay.3. we observe that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the revenue made out a strong case for stay of operation of the order of the commissioner (appeals). we accordingly stay the operation of the order of the commissioner (appeals), pending the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. This application for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is filed by the Revenue. Heard the learned SDR and perused the records. None appeared for the respondent.

2. The respondents got HDPE woven sacks manufactured through a job worker, M/s. Tirupati Packaging, who discharged the duty liability on the woven sacks. Consequent on a CESTAT's decision that the woven sacks are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, refund claims arose. Such claims were made by the said job worker which were rejected. The appeal against such rejection is pending with the Tribunal. Meanwhile the present respondents claim refund for the same amount on the plea that they have borne the incidence of duty. These claims were also rejected by the Assistant Commissioner inter alia on the ground that the job worker's claim for refund of the same amount is pending in appeal with CESTAT. The respondents went in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the lower authority. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the application for stay.

3. We observe that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Revenue made out a strong case for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). We accordingly stay the operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), pending the appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial