Commissioner of Customs Vs. Nirma Ltd.

Commissioner of Customs vs Nirma Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Apr 11, 2005

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/38736

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/38736
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: A Wadhwa, A M Moheb
Decided On: Apr 11, 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

Commissioner of Customs

Respondent

Nirma Ltd.

Excerpt

1. after rejecting the stay petition, we take up the appeal itself as the issue is decided.2. vide his impugned order, commissioner (appeals) has remanded the matter to the original authority. the revenue's only contention is that commissioner (appeals) was not having any powers to remand the matter after amendment to section 35a(3). ld. dr appearing for the revenue fairly agrees that the issue stands decided by the honourable high court decision in the case of commissioner of central excise, ahmedabad vis. medico labs reported in 2004(173)elt 117(guj) = (2004-tiol-39-hc-ahm-cx) . in the said decision, it is held that commissioner (appeals) have powers to remand even after amendment of section 35a(3). in view of the above decision, we do not find any merits in the revenue appeal and reject the same.

Full Judgment

1. After rejecting the stay petition, we take up the appeal itself as the issue is decided.

2. Vide his impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter to the original authority. The revenue's only contention is that Commissioner (Appeals) was not having any powers to remand the matter after amendment to Section 35A(3). Ld. DR appearing for the revenue fairly agrees that the issue stands decided by the Honourable High Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad vis. Medico Labs reported in 2004(173)ELT 117(Guj) = (2004-TIOL-39-HC-AHM-CX) . In the said decision, it is held that Commissioner (Appeals) have powers to remand even after amendment of Section 35A(3). In view of the above decision, we do not find any merits in the revenue appeal and reject the same.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Customs vs Nirma Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge A Wadhwa, A M Moheb