Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Prime Machines Coop Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Prime Machines Coop Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Oct 03, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/40449

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/40449
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: A Wadhwa, S T S.S.
Decided On: Oct 03, 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 Central Excise

Respondent

Prime Machines Coop Ltd.

Excerpt

1. heard both sides & considered the material in these two appeals which are filed by revenue and cover the same issue.2. the respondents are manufacturers of man made metallic yarn and were clearing the said goods under the benefit of the exemption granted to handicrafts vide notification no. 76/86/ce, dated 10-2-86 on the basis of clarification issued vide circular no. 56/2/95 cx, dated 25-5-95.thereafter the goods were suddenly held to be not covered as handicrafts & in the facts of this case the department visited the factory only on 11-12-97 in spite of cbec circular no. 280/114/96/cx, dated 19-12-96 withdrawing the clarification on exemption of handicrafts to the subject goods. the cce(a) noting this fact as also that notice was issued to the appellants only on 11/98 i.e. beyond the period of 6 months, therefore following the decisions of this tribunal and hon'ble apex court, set aside the demands on the basis of grounds of limitation. revenue is therefore in appeal in both these cases of identical grounds.3. we find that on this issue of metallic yarn the benefit of time bar has been granted, in case of goods cleared under identical circumstances and notification during that period vide order no.cl/2824-2826/2003, dated 10-11-2003. in this view of the matter and on perusal of the grounds taken where we find no reason to explain, the inordinate delay on the part of the officers to implement the boards changed views and no contribution to exist on part of the respondents to call for invocation of the larger period of demand. the goods during the period of demand were held by the department & the industry to be exempted & in this case the registration were also surrendered. the demands therefore made are to be held as barred by limitation. we find no merits in the present appeals filed by revenue. they are barred by limitation. consequently they are rejected.

Full Judgment

1. Heard both sides & considered the material in these two appeals which are filed by Revenue and cover the same issue.

2. The respondents are manufacturers of Man Made Metallic Yarn and were clearing the said goods under the benefit of the Exemption granted to Handicrafts vide Notification No. 76/86/CE, dated 10-2-86 on the basis of clarification issued vide Circular No. 56/2/95 CX, dated 25-5-95.

Thereafter the goods were suddenly held to be not covered as Handicrafts & in the facts of this case the department visited the factory only on 11-12-97 in spite of CBEC circular No. 280/114/96/CX, dated 19-12-96 withdrawing the clarification on exemption of handicrafts to the subject goods. The CCE(A) noting this fact as also that notice was issued to the appellants only on 11/98 i.e. beyond the period of 6 months, therefore following the decisions of this Tribunal and Hon'ble Apex Court, set aside the demands on the basis of grounds of limitation. Revenue is therefore in appeal in both these cases of identical grounds.

3. We find that on this issue of metallic yarn the benefit of time bar has been granted, in case of goods cleared under identical circumstances and notification during that period vide Order No.Cl/2824-2826/2003, dated 10-11-2003. In this view of the matter and on perusal of the grounds taken where we find no reason to explain, the inordinate delay on the part of the officers to implement the Boards changed views and no contribution to exist on part of the respondents to call for invocation of the larger period of demand. The goods during the period of demand were held by the Department & the Industry to be exempted & in this case the Registration were also surrendered. The demands therefore made are to be held as barred by limitation. We find no merits in the present appeals filed by Revenue. They are barred by limitation. Consequently they are rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Prime Machines Coop Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge A Wadhwa, S T S.S.