Cce Vs. Dhillon Kool Drinks and Beverages

Cce vs Dhillon Kool Drinks and Beverages

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jan 14, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/37765

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/37765
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: B T P.S., K Mamgain
Decided On: Jan 14, 2005
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

Cce

Respondent

Dhillon Kool Drinks and Beverages

Excerpt

1. in this appeal, the revenue has challenged the correctness of the impugned order in appeal vide which the commissioner (appeals) has reversed the order in original and allowed the modvat credit to the respondents on the broken glass bottles as the value of the same was added in the assessable value of the goods by the respondents during the period in dispute.2. the learned sdr has contended that the respondents did not add full value of the broken glass bottles in the assessable value of the goods and as such, they were not entitled to claim the modvat credit. but we find that no such plea has been taken in the show cause notice wherein, it has been only alleged that respondents did not add the value of the broken glass bottles in the assessable value of the goods. the learned commissioner (appeals) has recorded the findings that the value of the broken glass bottles was added by the respondents in the assessable value of the goods during the period in dispute. that being so, they had been rightly allowed the modvat credit. the learned commissioner (appeals) has also followed the earlier judgment of the tribunal in this regard, in the respondents own case. he has also followed the ratio of law laid down in union of india v. sancheti foods products ltd. 1993 (68) elt 341. in view of this, we do not find any merit in the appeal and uphold the impugned order. the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the correctness of the impugned order in appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order in original and allowed the modvat credit to the respondents on the broken glass bottles as the value of the same was added in the assessable value of the goods by the respondents during the period in dispute.

2. The learned SDR has contended that the respondents did not add full value of the broken glass bottles in the assessable value of the goods and as such, they were not entitled to claim the modvat credit. But we find that no such plea has been taken in the show cause notice wherein, it has been only alleged that respondents did not add the value of the broken glass bottles in the assessable value of the goods. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded the findings that the value of the broken glass bottles was added by the respondents in the assessable value of the goods during the period in dispute. That being so, they had been rightly allowed the modvat credit. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also followed the earlier Judgment of the Tribunal in this regard, in the respondents own case. He has also followed the ratio of law laid down in Union of India v. Sancheti Foods Products Ltd. 1993 (68) ELT 341. In view of this, we do not find any merit in the appeal and uphold the impugned order. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Cce vs Dhillon Kool Drinks and Beverages Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge B T P.S., K Mamgain