M.J. Pharmaceuticals Vs. Cce

M.J. Pharmaceuticals vs Cce

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

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39037

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/39037
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu
Decided On: May 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

M.J. Pharmaceuticals

Respondent

Cce

Excerpt

1. after hearing both sides and considering that the issue in this case is interpretation of rule 6 and consequent recovery of 8% as prescribed under that rule when common inputs are used in or for manufacture of dutiable and duty exempt products covered by a notification not relating to exemption to availability of credit has since been settled by the bangalore bench of this tribunal vide its order in the case of appeal no. e/948/2003 in the case of andhra pradesh paper mills ltd. [2004-tiol-1056-cestat-bang] in favour of no such reversals called.relying upon this decision especially para 3 thereof and for those very reasons this appeal is to be allowed.2. the case of albert david ltd. v. cce, 2003 (151) elt 443 (tri-del) where the civil appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed by the apex court, 2003 (157) elt a81, relied upon by the d.r will not held the revenue's case, since that decision was as regards the treatment of credit availed on inputs lying in stock when the final product was exempted from duty. the issues in this case are not same.3. following andhra pradesh paper mills ltd. [2004-tiol-1056-cestat-bang] especially para 3 thereof we would set aside the order and allow this appeal.

Full Judgment

1. After hearing both sides and considering that the issue in this case is interpretation of rule 6 and consequent recovery of 8% as prescribed under that rule when common inputs are used in or for manufacture of dutiable and duty exempt products covered by a notification not relating to exemption to availability of credit has since been settled by the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal vide its order in the case of appeal no. E/948/2003 in the case of Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. [2004-TIOL-1056-CESTAT-BANG] in favour of no such reversals called.

Relying upon this decision especially para 3 thereof and for those very reasons this appeal is to be allowed.

2. The case of Albert David Ltd. v. CCE, 2003 (151) ELT 443 (Tri-Del) where the Civil Appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed by the Apex Court, 2003 (157) ELT A81, relied upon by the D.R will not held the Revenue's case, since that decision was as regards the treatment of credit availed on inputs lying in stock when the final product was exempted from duty. The issues in this case are not same.

3. Following Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. [2004-TIOL-1056-CESTAT-BANG] especially para 3 thereof we would set aside the order and allow this appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties M.J. Pharmaceuticals vs Cce Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu