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.

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. JaIn Irrigation Systems Ltd.

Commissioner of C. Ex. vs JaIn Irrigation Systems Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Oct 27, 2006
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/43949

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 Mumbai
Judge
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

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Respondent

JaIn Irrigation Systems Ltd.

Excerpt

2. the amount involved in the present appeal is rs. 22,844/- which has been refunded to the assessee on account of reduction in the basic custom duty on the imported inputs i.e. polyethylene. the revenue is in appeal on the ground that test of unjust enrichment has not been applied on the said sum. on this aspect, the commissioner (appeals), central excise, nashik has discussed well and passed reasoned order which does not call for any interference. it has been observed that during the material period the price of final product i.e. irrigation component has considerably gone down. the respondent herein has paid rs. 3.05 crores per annum on the imported inputs. the amount of rs. 22,844/- is too small to have any impact on the price of the exempted final product. in spite of the same the value of the final product has gone down (may be, because of other market forces). the respondent has not passed on burden to its customers to purchase the final product.3. in view of the aforesaid observation, i find no merits in the present appeal on both the grounds. hence rejected.

Full Judgment

2. The amount involved in the present appeal is Rs. 22,844/- which has been refunded to the assessee on account of reduction in the basic Custom duty on the imported inputs i.e. Polyethylene. The revenue is in appeal on the ground that test of unjust enrichment has not been applied on the said sum. On this aspect, the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Nashik has discussed well and passed reasoned order which does not call for any interference. It has been observed that during the material period the price of final product i.e. Irrigation component has considerably gone down. The respondent herein has paid Rs. 3.05 crores per annum on the imported inputs. The amount of Rs. 22,844/- is too small to have any impact on the price of the exempted final product. In spite of the same the value of the final product has gone down (may be, because of other market forces). The respondent has not passed on burden to its customers to purchase the final product.

3. In view of the aforesaid observation, I find no merits in the present appeal on both the grounds. Hence rejected.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial