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.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sona Casting Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Sona Casting Pvt. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided May 24, 2005
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39154

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 Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Customs

Case Summary

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

Customs

Key legal issue
Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Sona Casting Pvt. Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(2006)(193)ELT193TriDel

Excerpt

1. none has appeared on behalf of the respondents. they have requested to decide the case on merits.2. in this appeal the revenue has not contested the correctness of the impugned order-in-appeal, on merits vide which the commissioner (appeals) has allowed the credit and dropped the duty demand on imported melting scrap used by the respondents in the manufacture of final product, after receipt of the same from punjab state warehousing corpn., the custodian of the imported goods, on the ground that the end-use certificate, had been submitted by the respondents and whatever quantity of goods they received from the above said corpn., they utilised the same. the correctness of the order has been questioned only on the ground of jurisdiction by contending the jurisdiction of the commissioner (appeals) was taken away vide notification no.78/2002-cus., dated 5-12-2002. but this contention/ground of the revenue cannot be accepted. the above said notification was issued only when the appeal was at the stage of hearing of the arguments by the commissioner (appeals). moreover after this notification, the appeal was never transferred by the board or any competent authority, from the commissioner (appeals), to any other competent officer, for hearing the appeal. no objection in that regard was also taken by the department before the commissioner (appeals) at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits. therefore, no prejudice can be said to have been caused on that account to the revenue especially when on merits the impugned order had not been challenged. therefore, the impugned order is upheld.the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents. They have requested to decide the case on merits.

2. In this appeal the Revenue has not contested the correctness of the impugned order-in-appeal, on merits vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the credit and dropped the duty demand on imported melting scrap used by the respondents in the manufacture of final product, after receipt of the same from Punjab State Warehousing Corpn., the custodian of the imported goods, on the ground that the end-use certificate, had been submitted by the respondents and whatever quantity of goods they received from the above said Corpn., they utilised the same. The correctness of the order has been questioned only on the ground of jurisdiction by contending the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) was taken away vide Notification No.78/2002-Cus., dated 5-12-2002. But this contention/ground of the Revenue cannot be accepted. The above said notification was issued only when the appeal was at the stage of hearing of the arguments by the Commissioner (Appeals). Moreover after this notification, the appeal was never transferred by the Board or any competent authority, from the Commissioner (Appeals), to any other competent officer, for hearing the appeal. No objection in that regard was also taken by the Department before the Commissioner (Appeals) at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits. Therefore, no prejudice can be said to have been caused on that account to the Revenue especially when on merits the impugned order had not been challenged. Therefore, the impugned order is upheld.The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial