Cce Vs. Ambika Screen Works

Cce vs Ambika Screen Works

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Oct 01, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/36665

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/36665
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: N T C.N.B., P Bajaj
Decided On: Oct 01, 2004
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cce

Respondent

Ambika Screen Works

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(117)LC984Tri(Delhi)

Excerpt

1. the appeals of the revenue are directed against the order-in-appeal no. 491-493-ce/ind/appl-i/03. dated 29.8.2003 wherein the commissioner (appeals) has held that the parts of kerosene stove manufactured by the respondents remained exempted under small scale exemption notification no. 41/94-ce.2. we have perused the record and heard both sides. the commissioner (appeals) passed the order following the dictum in the judgment of the apex court in the case of cce v. universal electrical industry 2003 (153) elt 266 (sc) : 2003 (108) ecr 21 (sc).3. the contention of the revenue is that, the commissioner (appeals) has passed the order without considering the judgment of the apex court in the case of cce, ahmedabad v. jalaram wood crafts (p) ltd. 2003 (153) 251 (sc).4. during the course of hearing of the case, the learned counsel drew our attention to para 9 of the judgment in the case of cce, ahmedabad v. jalaram wood crafts (p) ltd., (supra). the perusal of the judgements in question would make it clear that the judgment in the case of ccb, ahmedabad v. jalaram wood crafts (p) ltd., (supra), has no application to the present case, inasmuch as the respondents were not producing any final product and were not availing exemption under notification no.217/86-ce.5. in these circumstances, there was no error in the impugned order and the same is confirmed, the appeals of the revenue stand rejected.

Full Judgment

1. The appeals of the Revenue are directed against the order-in-appeal No. 491-493-CE/IND/APPL-I/03. dated 29.8.2003 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the parts of Kerosene Stove manufactured by the respondents remained exempted under Small Scale Exemption Notification No. 41/94-CE.2. We have perused the record and heard both sides. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order following the dictum in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CCE v. Universal Electrical Industry 2003 (153) ELT 266 (SC) : 2003 (108) ECR 21 (SC).

3. The contention of the Revenue is that, the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the order without considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Jalaram Wood Crafts (P) Ltd. 2003 (153) 251 (SC).

4. During the course of hearing of the case, the learned Counsel drew our attention to para 9 of the judgment in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Jalaram Wood Crafts (P) Ltd., (supra). The perusal of the judgements in question would make it clear that the judgment in the case of CCB, Ahmedabad v. Jalaram Wood Crafts (P) Ltd., (supra), has no application to the present case, inasmuch as the respondents were not producing any final product and were not availing exemption under Notification No.217/86-CE.5. In these circumstances, there was no error in the impugned order and the same is confirmed, The appeals of the Revenue stand rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Cce vs Ambika Screen Works Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge N T C.N.B., P Bajaj