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.

Ranjan Polyesters Limited Vs. Cce

Ranjan Polyesters Limited vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jan 04, 2006
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/41382

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
Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ranjan Polyesters Limited

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In
(2006)(107)ECC450

Excerpt

.....of duty of rs. 3,45,198/- and penalty of rs. 10,000/ 2. it was argued for the applicants that with effect from 1.4.2003, tariff structure for textile was changed and rule 9a was introduced in cenvat credit rules, 2002. the applicants were manufacturing polyester texturized yarn out 6 of poy received by them as inputs. they have taken credit of duty paid on poy lying in stock or contained in texturized yarn lying in their factory as on 31.3.03. the department has objected that they are not eligible for credit of duty paid on poy in case of dyed and twisted yarn manufactured from duty paid texturized yarn. therefore, they have taken excess credit which has been demanded by the lower authorities. it was argued that they are eligible for taking credit of duty paid on poy. they have already pre-deposited rs. 85,000/- under pla entry no. 2 dated 25.8.2005. this may be treated as sufficient compliance of section 35-f of the central excise act and recovery of the remaining amount may be stayed.3. it was argued for the revenue that cenvat credit was not admissible on poy which was used in the manufacture of texturized yarn cleared on payment of duty before 1.4.2003. the applicants had used poy for manufacture of texturized yarn which was cleared for captive use on payment of duty. therefore, the credit was admissible for the duty paid on texturized yarn lying in stock as such and duty paid on texturized yarn contained in the finished dyed and twisted yarn. therefore, the applicants have taken excess credit.4. on considering the submissions made by both the sides, i find that the eligibility of credit on poy in respect of duty paid texturized yarn lying in stock and used for dyeing and twisting requires detailed examination. since the applicants have already deposited an amount of rs. 85,000/-, this is sufficient amount for compliance of section 35-f of the central excise act. therefore, the recovery of the balance amount in dispute is waived for hearing the appeal.....

Full Judgment

1. This stay application is filed for staying recovery of duty of Rs. 3,45,198/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/ 2. It was argued for the applicants that with effect from 1.4.2003, tariff structure for textile was changed and Rule 9A was introduced in CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. The applicants were manufacturing polyester texturized yarn out 6 of POY received by them as inputs. They have taken credit of duty paid on POY lying in stock or contained in texturized yarn lying in their factory as on 31.3.03. The department has objected that they are not eligible for credit of duty paid on POY in case of dyed and twisted yarn manufactured from duty paid texturized yarn. Therefore, they have taken excess credit which has been demanded by the lower authorities. It was argued that they are eligible for taking credit of duty paid on POY. They have already pre-deposited Rs. 85,000/- under PLA Entry No. 2 dated 25.8.2005. This may be treated as sufficient compliance of Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act and recovery of the remaining amount may be stayed.

3. It was argued for the Revenue that CENVAT credit was not admissible on POY which was used in the manufacture of texturized yarn cleared on payment of duty before 1.4.2003. The applicants had used POY for manufacture of texturized yarn which was cleared for captive use on payment of duty. Therefore, the credit was admissible for the duty paid on texturized yarn lying in stock as such and duty paid on texturized yarn contained in the finished dyed and twisted yarn. Therefore, the applicants have taken excess credit.

4. On considering the submissions made by both the sides, I find that the eligibility of credit on POY in respect of duty paid texturized yarn lying in stock and used for dyeing and twisting requires detailed examination. Since the applicants have already deposited an amount of Rs. 85,000/-, this is sufficient amount for compliance of Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act. Therefore, the recovery of the balance amount in dispute is waived for hearing the appeal The appeal shall come up for hearing in due course.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial