Cce Vs. Jct Ltd.

Cce vs Jct Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 30, 2006

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/44237

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/44237
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Nov 30, 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

Cce

Respondent

Jct Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2006)(197)ELT59TriDel

Excerpt

2. the revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by commissioner (appeals). in the present appeal, the revenue wants to add notional interest on advance received from the customers to the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the respondents.3. we find that in the impugned order there is a specific finding that the sale price of goods is the same for the customers who had made security deposit and those who had not made such deposit. in view of this factual finding as the revenue failed to show that the security deposit has influenced the price charged by the appellant, therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals). In the present appeal, the Revenue wants to add notional interest on advance received from the customers to the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the respondents.

3. We find that in the impugned order there is a specific finding that the sale price of goods is the same for the customers who had made security deposit and those who had not made such deposit. In view of this factual finding as the Revenue failed to show that the security deposit has influenced the price charged by the appellant, therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Cce vs Jct Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S Kang, Vice, N T C.N.B.