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.

The Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

The Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jul 29, 2005
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39852

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
Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Simplex Mills Co. Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

1. these appeals arise out of the orders of the commissioner (appeals).in the impugned orders, the commissioner (appeals) upheld the decision of the lower authority who directed the appellants to apply for provisional assessment and execute a bond covering the differential amount even though show cause notices have already been issued in regard to the valuation of yarn captively consumed by the appellants.the grievance of the appellants is that when a show cause notice is already issued on the same issue, the department should not have directed them to execute a bond and follow the route of provisional assessment. a similar issue in the appellants' own case has come up before the tribunal in . the tribunal held that demand notices once issued to the appellants, they are not required to execute a bond or give a bank guarantee for provisional assessment. following the ratio of this decision, we hold that the appellants' plea that they are not required to go through the route of provisional assessment is correct.2. the appeals are allowed. the orders of the commissioner (appeals) are set aside.

Full Judgment

1. These appeals arise out of the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals).

In the impugned orders, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision of the lower authority who directed the appellants to apply for provisional assessment and execute a bond covering the differential amount even though show cause notices have already been issued in regard to the valuation of yarn captively consumed by the appellants.

The grievance of the appellants is that when a show cause notice is already issued on the same issue, the department should not have directed them to execute a bond and follow the route of provisional assessment. A similar issue in the appellants' own case has come up before the Tribunal in . The Tribunal held that demand notices once issued to the appellants, they are not required to execute a bond or give a bank guarantee for provisional assessment. Following the ratio of this decision, we hold that the appellants' plea that they are not required to go through the route of provisional assessment is correct.

2. The appeals are allowed. The orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) are set aside.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial