Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Goodyear India Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Goodyear India Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 19, 2004

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/37135

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/37135
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice-, A T V.K.
Decided On: Nov 19, 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

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Goodyear India Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(181)ELT62TriDel

Excerpt

2. revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals) whereby the commissioner (appeals) allowed the benefit of notification no. 53/88-ce. the contention of the revenue is that period in dispute from april, 96 to sept., 96 and notification no.53/88-ce was rescinded prior to april, 96, therefore, the grant of the benefit of notification no. 53/88-c.e. was not sustainable. during arguments it is admitted by the revenue that during the period in dispute, the successor notification was in existence which was similar to the notification no. 53/88-c.e. in these circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.

Full Judgment

2. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the benefit of Notification No. 53/88-CE. The contention of the Revenue is that period in dispute from April, 96 to Sept., 96 and Notification No.53/88-CE was rescinded prior to April, 96, therefore, the grant of the benefit of Notification No. 53/88-C.E. was not sustainable. During arguments it is admitted by the Revenue that during the period in dispute, the successor notification was in existence which was similar to the Notification No. 53/88-C.E. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Goodyear India Ltd. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S Kang, Vice-, A T V.K.