Cce Vs. Philips (i) Ltd.

Cce vs Philips (i) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jun 21, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39422

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/39422
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu
Decided On: Jun 21, 2005
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cce

Respondent

Philips (i) Ltd.

Excerpt

1. commissioner(appeals) granted the benefit of notification 108/95 dated 28.08.95 after personally having verified the documents. the respondents had submitted before the cce(a) - a) a letter dated 12.12.96 from world bank to national thermal power corporation ltd. (ntpc) certifying that they are funding the project under consideration. b) approval dated 16.02.1995 of the government of india and ntpc project under consideration. c) certificate dated 07.05.97 issued by ntpc certifying that world bank has financed the project and the government of india had approved the same. this also certified the project to have been sub-centralised to bharat heavy electricals ltd (bhel) for supply of "equipment & material including associated accessories for control and instrumentation package". d) purchase order dated 29.11.1997 issued by bhel in favour of the respondents herein for supply of the goods.2. (a) the personal verification of cce(a) cannot be doubted.therefore, there is no force found in the present appeal, filed by the revenue, that certificate as required under notification 108/95 was not submitted and also the verification of cce(a) had deprived the revenue an opportunity to examine the same without bringing out any specific defects in the same. since oxford dictionary defines the term certificate to include "a fulfillment of requirements". the requirement of goods travelling from respondents the bhel of the project approved is deemed to be fulfilled.(b) we also note and follow the earlier decision of the tribunal on this very issue in case of automatic electricity ltd., 2004(178) elt 524 and nothing contra shown. there is, therefore, no merits found in the appeal filed by the revenue.

Full Judgment

1. Commissioner(Appeals) granted the benefit of notification 108/95 dated 28.08.95 after personally having verified the documents. The respondents had submitted before the CCE(A) - a) A letter dated 12.12.96 from World Bank to National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (NTPC) certifying that they are funding the project under consideration.

b) Approval dated 16.02.1995 of the Government of India and NTPC project under consideration.

c) Certificate dated 07.05.97 issued by NTPC certifying that World Bank has financed the project and the Government of India had approved the same. This also certified the project to have been sub-centralised to Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (BHEL) for supply of "Equipment & material including associated accessories for control and instrumentation package".

d) Purchase order dated 29.11.1997 issued by BHEL in favour of the respondents herein for supply of the goods.

2. (a) The personal verification of CCE(A) cannot be doubted.

Therefore, there is no force found in the present appeal, filed by the Revenue, that certificate as required under notification 108/95 was not submitted and also the verification of CCE(A) had deprived the Revenue an opportunity to examine the same without bringing out any specific defects in the same. Since Oxford Dictionary defines the term certificate to include "a fulfillment of requirements". The requirement of goods travelling from respondents the BHEL of the project approved is deemed to be fulfilled.

(b) We also note and follow the earlier decision of the Tribunal on this very issue in case of Automatic Electricity Ltd., 2004(178) ELT 524 and nothing contra shown. There is, therefore, no merits found in the appeal filed by the revenue.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Cce vs Philips (i) Ltd. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu