Mayank Electra Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Mayank Electra Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 01, 2006

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/42005

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/42005
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: K Kumar
Decided On: Mar 01, 2006
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

Mayank Electra Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

2. the id. counsel for the appellants inter alia submitted that the order dated 16-3-2005 passed by this bench is an ex parte order and the factual position could not be brought to the notice of the bench which resulted in the present order. he submitted that after 1-4-2000 the appellants were not required to pay 10% of the input duty. therefore, the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered in favour of the appellants by the decision in the case of tejas packaging v. cce, mumbai-v .3. since the issue involved is squarely covered in favour of the appellants by the aforesaid decision and this decision was not brought to the notice of the bench at the time of passing the order dated 16-3-2005 which is an ex parte order, i recall the same and following the ratio of the aforesaid decision, allow the appeal filed by the appellants.

Full Judgment

2. The Id. Counsel for the appellants inter alia submitted that the order dated 16-3-2005 passed by this bench is an ex parte order and the factual position could not be brought to the notice of the bench which resulted in the present order. He submitted that after 1-4-2000 the appellants were not required to pay 10% of the input duty. Therefore, the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered in favour of the appellants by the decision in the case of Tejas packaging v. CCE, Mumbai-V .

3. Since the issue involved is squarely covered in favour of the appellants by the aforesaid decision and this decision was not brought to the notice of the bench at the time of passing the order dated 16-3-2005 which is an ex parte order, I recall the same and following the ratio of the aforesaid decision, allow the appeal filed by the appellants.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Mayank Electra Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge K Kumar