Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Crystal Lace (i) Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Crystal Lace (i) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 12, 2006

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/41476

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/41476
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T Chittaranjan
Decided On: Jan 12, 2006
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

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Crystal Lace (i) Ltd.

Excerpt

.....the same in their chilling plant for temperature control. it is argued on behalf of the applicant commissioner that under the impugned notification no. 1/95-ce dtd.4.1.1995, under sr. no. 3(b) and 3(c) to annexure i, fuel and furnance oil are respectively covered subject to approval of the assistant/deputy commissioner of central excise and since the respondents do not have such approval, they are not entitled to the exemption. it is the claim of the respondents that ldo obtained by them under ct3 is eligible for exemption as consumable under sr. no. 7 of the said annexure i to the said notification no. 1/95. they also contend that they have obtained the material with the full knowledge of the department and the show cause notice issued on 26.2.2003 for the period 6.3.1998 to 27.7.2002 is, therefore, clearly time barred.3. in view of the fact that the impugned goods are covered under the description 'consumable' appearing under sr. no. 7 to the annexure i to the notification no. 1/95-ce dtd.4.1.95, the respondents are clearly entitled to the exemption under the same. as such, the impugned order passed by the applicant commissioner in his earlier capacity allowing the benefit of exemption to the respondents is in order and the subsequent appeal filed by the applicant commissioner against his own order is without any merit. the department's appeal is therefore rejected.

Full Judgment

1. Heard both sides. It is strange that this appeal has been filed under authorization by the applicant Commissioner, Central Excise, Belapur, Shri Premanand Das against the impugned order in appeal passed by no other than himself in his earlier capacity as Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. It is not as if he has been directed by any superior authority to file this appeal as was confirmed by the learned S.D.R. Filing of such an appeal as this against his own order clearly indicates that some of the Commissioners in the field are not willing to take responsibility for accepting even their own orders and they perhaps want that every decision to allow relief should be approved at the Tribunal level. Such tendency on the part of the departmental authorities is perhaps the cause of numerous avoidable departmental appeals filed in the Tribunal.

2. The respondents are a 100% EOU who have obtained LDO under CT3 certificate and have used the same in their chilling plant for temperature control. It is argued on behalf of the applicant Commissioner that under the impugned Notification No. 1/95-CE dtd.4.1.1995, under Sr. No. 3(b) and 3(c) to Annexure I, fuel and furnance oil are respectively covered subject to approval of the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and since the respondents do not have such approval, they are not entitled to the exemption. It is the claim of the respondents that LDO obtained by them under CT3 is eligible for exemption as consumable under Sr. No. 7 of the said Annexure I to the said Notification No. 1/95. They also contend that they have obtained the material with the full knowledge of the department and the Show Cause Notice issued on 26.2.2003 for the period 6.3.1998 to 27.7.2002 is, therefore, clearly time barred.

3. In view of the fact that the impugned goods are covered under the description 'consumable' appearing under Sr. No. 7 to the Annexure I to the Notification No. 1/95-CE dtd.4.1.95, the respondents are clearly entitled to the exemption under the same. As such, the impugned order passed by the applicant Commissioner in his earlier capacity allowing the benefit of exemption to the respondents is in order and the subsequent appeal filed by the applicant Commissioner against his own order is without any merit. The department's appeal is therefore rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Crystal Lace (i) Ltd. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S T Chittaranjan