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.

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Thirani Chemicals Ltd.

Collector of Central Excise vs Thirani Chemicals Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 09, 1988
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/4147

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
Decided On
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

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Thirani Chemicals Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(1988)(16)ECC180

Excerpt

1. the issue arising for decision in these appeals by revenue is eligibility of precipitated chalk to benefit of exemption under notification no. 23/55-ce, dated 29-4-1955 as subsequently amended.2. at hearing of the appeal shri sunder rajan in fairness drew attention of the bench to decision of the tribunal in case of collector of central excise, rajkot v. madhu chemicals, bhavnagar, 1988 (23) elt 166 (tribunal) and stated that in this decision the tribunal had held precipitated chalk eligible to benefit of exemption under the notification irrespective of the end-use. he also stated that revenue had accepted this decision and in view of this decision revenue has no case in these appeals before the tribunal. in spite of the above frank submission of shri sunder rajan, shri k.k. kapoor, learned consultant for the respondents, persisted in making his submission and drew attention of the bench to the other decision of the tribunal in case of collector of central excise, meerut v. gulshan sugar and chemicals (p) ltd., 1988 (33) elt 123 (tribunal) and submitted that tribunal in this decision with respect to coated precipitated chalk had held benefit of exemption under the notification available and satisfaction as to end-use considering the language of the notification unnecessary.3. in view of the decisions referred to by both the parties, the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. The issue arising for decision in these appeals by Revenue is eligibility of precipitated chalk to benefit of exemption under Notification No. 23/55-CE, dated 29-4-1955 as subsequently amended.

2. At hearing of the appeal Shri Sunder Rajan in fairness drew attention of the Bench to decision of the Tribunal in case of Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot v. Madhu Chemicals, Bhavnagar, 1988 (23) ELT 166 (Tribunal) and stated that in this decision the Tribunal had held precipitated chalk eligible to benefit of exemption under the notification irrespective of the end-use. He also stated that Revenue had accepted this decision and in view of this decision Revenue has no case in these appeals before the Tribunal. In spite of the above frank submission of Shri Sunder Rajan, Shri K.K. Kapoor, learned Consultant for the respondents, persisted in making his submission and drew attention of the Bench to the other decision of the Tribunal in case of Collector of Central Excise, Meerut v. Gulshan Sugar and Chemicals (P) Ltd., 1988 (33) ELT 123 (Tribunal) and submitted that Tribunal in this decision with respect to coated precipitated chalk had held benefit of exemption under the notification available and satisfaction as to end-use considering the language of the notification unnecessary.

3. In View of the decisions referred to by both the parties, the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial