Renuka Cement Ltd. Vs. Cce

Renuka Cement Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 10, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/37325

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/37325
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: P Bajaj, M T K.C.
Decided On: Dec 10, 2004
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

Renuka Cement Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(99)ECC522

Excerpt

1. in this appeal, the appellants have questioned the correctness of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the commissioner (appeals) has reversed the order-in-original and rejected the claim of the appellants. the appellants were availing the benefit of notification no. 12/95 dated 16.3.95 without firstly exhausting the benefit of notification no. 1/93. no one has come present on behalf of the appellants. they have requested for a decision on merits.3. we find that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of cement and availing the full exemption benefit under notification no.1/93 dated 28.2.93. but before exhausting their clearances of goods under the said notification, they attempted to avail the benefit of notification no. 12/95 dated 16.3.95 under which the specific rate of duty has been provided. in our view, they could not legally opt for benefit of this later notification when they were also availing the benefit under the first notification no. 1 /93. however, only after exhausting the limit under first notification, they could not shift (sic) (could shift) to another notification. this conclusion finds support from the bare reading of notification no. 12/95 jointly with notification no. 1/93. therefore, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals) and the same is upheld.the appeal of the appellants is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal, the appellants have questioned the correctness of the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the Order-in-Original and rejected the claim of the appellants. The appellants were availing the benefit of Notification No. 12/95 dated 16.3.95 without firstly exhausting the benefit of Notification No. 1/93. No one has come present on behalf of the appellants. They have requested for a decision on merits.

3. We find that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of cement and availing the full exemption benefit under Notification No.1/93 dated 28.2.93. But before exhausting their clearances of goods under the said Notification, they attempted to avail the benefit of Notification No. 12/95 dated 16.3.95 under which the specific rate of duty has been provided. In our view, they could not legally opt for benefit of this later notification when they were also availing the benefit under the first Notification No. 1 /93. However, only after exhausting the limit under first notification, they could not shift (sic) (could shift) to another notification. This conclusion finds support from the bare reading of Notification No. 12/95 jointly with Notification No. 1/93. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same is upheld.The appeal of the appellants is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Renuka Cement Ltd. vs Cce Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge P Bajaj, M T K.C.