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.

Shreyans Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Shreyans Industries Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Apr 26, 2004
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/35061

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

Shreyans Industries Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In
(2004)(95)ECC375

Excerpt

.....have been directed against the impugned orders-in-original dated 28.2.03 vide which the adjudicating authority had confirmed duty demand of rs. 55,06,263 with equal amount of penalty, on the appellants.2. the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of writing and printing paper falling under chapter 48 of the schedule to the ceta.they supplied these goods to the delhi bureau of text books in (short dbt) in pursuant of the order dated 18.10.2000 placed with them by the secretary of the said dbt and cleared the goods without payment of duty by availing the exemption under chapter heading 4802.10 of the ceta.3. the benefit of the exemption from duty under the above-said chapter heading had been denied to them on two grounds (i) that the dbt is neither a state text books publication corporation nor a board owned by the state; (ii) that the order for the purchase of the goods was not placed with the appellants by the officer not below the rank of deputy secretary of the state/board.4. the learned counsel has contended that the dbt is a delhi state government's board and that the purchase order had been countersigned by the chairman who is the special secretary of education, delhi government. therefore, both the conditions laid down in para 1(a) of the note appended to sub-heading 8402.10 of the ceta stands satisfied and as such the appellants could not be denied exemption from duty under the said sub-heading. on the other hand, the learned sdr has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.5. we have heard both the sides and gone through the record. from the record, it is evident that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of writing and printing paper classifiable under chapter 48, they had supplied the goods to dbt which is wholly owned and organised by the state government of delhi as is evident from the certificate issued the director, shri rajendra kumar, ias. therefore, the first ground putforth by the department that the debt is not a.....

Full Judgment

1. These two appeals have been directed against the impugned Orders-in-Original dated 28.2.03 vide which the adjudicating authority had confirmed duty demand of Rs. 55,06,263 with equal amount of penalty, on the appellants.

2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of writing and printing paper falling under Chapter 48 of the Schedule to the CETA.They supplied these goods to the Delhi Bureau of Text Books in (short DBT) in pursuant of the order dated 18.10.2000 placed with them by the Secretary of the said DBT and cleared the goods without payment of duty by availing the exemption under Chapter Heading 4802.10 of the CETA.3. The benefit of the exemption from duty under the above-said Chapter Heading had been denied to them on two grounds (i) that the DBT is neither a State Text Books Publication Corporation nor a Board owned by the State; (ii) that the order for the purchase of the goods was not placed with the appellants by the officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary of the State/Board.

4. The learned Counsel has contended that the DBT is a Delhi State Government's Board and that the purchase order had been countersigned by the Chairman who is the Special Secretary of Education, Delhi Government. Therefore, both the conditions laid down in para 1(a) of the Note appended to Sub-heading 8402.10 of the CETA stands satisfied and as such the appellants could not be denied exemption from duty under the said Sub-heading. On the other hand, the learned SDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.

5. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. From the record, it is evident that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of writing and printing paper classifiable under Chapter 48, They had supplied the goods to DBT which is wholly owned and organised by the State Government of Delhi as is evident from the Certificate issued the Director, Shri Rajendra Kumar, IAS. Therefore, the first ground putforth by the Department that the DEBT is not a Government owned body does not survive.

6. No doubt initially the order for the purchase of the goods was placed by the Secretary of DBT. But later on, on the pointing out of the dept, they had got the said order countersigned by the Chairman and the Chairman is also Special Secretary of Education of the Government of NCT of Delhi. This post of Chairman in fact is being held by the Director of the Education with the status of Special Secretary Education. These facts are quite evident from the certificate issued by the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi dated 17.10.2003 which has been placed on record by the appellants.

Therefore, both the conditions laid down in para 1(a) of the Sub-heading notes of Chapter 48 of the CETA stand satisfied as the said para only enacts that the sub-heading 4802.10 prescribing nil rate of duty, will apply if the goods writing/printing paper had been supplied by the manufacturer against a purchase order placed by the State Text Public Education Corporation or Board by an officer not belong the rank of Deputy Secretary in the State Government concerned. That being so, the appellants could not be denied the benefit of this exemption when the supply of the goods by them falling under this sub-heading to the DBT, a Government owned body is not in dispute.

7. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order is set aside. The appeals of the appellants are allowed with consequential relief, if any, permissible under the law.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial