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.

Vindhya Cast Coaters Ltd. Vs. Cce

Vindhya Cast Coaters Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 30, 2005
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/38614

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 Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vindhya Cast Coaters Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In
(2005)(192)ELT464Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. after hearing both sides and on considering the condonatin of delay application has been filed in appeals against an impugned order which covered three show cause notices and one separate appeals were required to be filed as per the directions of the registrar. delay in filing the two subsequent appeals is condoned following the practice in such cases by this tribunal.2. after hearing, it is found that the issue involved in this case is interpretation of the clause used in paragraph 2 clause (iv) of notification 9/98 ce which uses the term "aggregate value of clearance of all excisable goods for home consumption by a manufacturer from one or more factories or from a factory by one or more manufacturers". this clause and term used, marked by does not use the words and terms "for and on behalf" as they were used in the notification no. 85/85, relied upon by the lower authorities following the decision in the case of cc, bangalore v. gammon fan chemicals ltd. 3. in view of this marked changed in the terms used, in notification 9/98, we find that prima-facie, a case for waiver of pre-deposit requirement and ordering stay of recovery has been made out, since a holding company and the subsidiary company cannot be considered to be same manufacturer.4. the issue involved in this matter are of a recurring nature and requires out of turn resolution. therefore, we would grant both sides the liberty to file such application.

Full Judgment

1. After hearing both sides and on considering the condonatin of delay application has been filed in appeals against an impugned order which covered three show cause notices and one separate appeals were required to be filed as per the directions of the Registrar. Delay in filing the two subsequent appeals is condoned following the practice in such cases by this Tribunal.

2. After hearing, it is found that the issue involved in this case is interpretation of the clause used in paragraph 2 clause (iv) of notification 9/98 CE which uses the term "aggregate value of clearance of all excisable goods for home consumption by a manufacturer from one or more factories or from a factory by one or more manufacturers". This clause and term used, marked by does not use the words and terms "for and on behalf" as they were used in the notification No. 85/85, relied upon by the lower authorities following the decision in the case of CC, Bangalore v. Gammon Fan Chemicals Ltd. 3. In view of this marked changed in the terms used, in notification 9/98, we find that prima-facie, a case for waiver of pre-deposit requirement and ordering stay of recovery has been made out, since a holding company and the subsidiary company cannot be considered to be same manufacturer.

4. The issue involved in this matter are of a recurring nature and requires out of turn resolution. Therefore, we would grant both sides the liberty to file such application.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial