L. M. L. Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise

L. M. L. Limited vs Collector of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 07, 1988

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/4494

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/4494
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Jul 07, 1988
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

L. M. L. Limited

Respondent

Collector of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (1989)(39)ELT131TriDel

Excerpt

.....dated 1.3.1984 caprolactum produced out of nylon polymer waste by the process of recycling of such waste in india was exempted from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon under section 3 of the central excises and salt act, 1944. shri santhanam has argued that the caprolactum produced by them were out of nylon polymer waste by the process of recycling of such waste arising in their own factory. he has stated that in a similar case this tribunal, vide order no. s-4 & 5/88-d dated 5.1.1988 dispensed with pre-deposit under section 35f of the central excises and salt act, 1944 and listed the appeals for early hearing on 7.2.1988. their appeals no.e/a 3228/87-d and 3247/87-d were heard and vide order no. 160-161 of 1988-d dated 17.2.1988. the tribunal allowed the appeals. shri santhanam has argued that the petitioners' case is squarely covered by the said order of the tribunal on merits. he has also stated that according to the judgments of allahabad high court reported in 1985 (19) elt 57 (allahabad) and 1988 (33) elt 58 (allahabad) wholly exempted commodities are not dutiable goods. so, no penalty should have been imposed in the present case. shri santhanam has not pleaded for any financial hardship, but has argued on strong primafacie case in favour of the petitioners. we have also heard smt zutshi, learned sdr for the respondent-collector. in view of the earlier decisions of this tribunal in order no. s - 4 &5/88-d, dated 5.1.1988 and order nos.160-161 of 1988/d dated 17.2.1983 in a similar case we dispense with the pre-deposit of duty and penalty under section 35f of the central excises and salt act, 1944 and stay the recovery there of till the.hearing of the main appeal. the learned sdr has requested for early hearing. her request is granted. the appeal is listed for hearing on merits on 30.8.1968.

Full Judgment

1. In this stay petition the petitioners have prayed for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 20,78,601.30 and penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/ pending hearing of the appeal and stay of recovery thereof.

We have heard Shri R. Santhanam, General Manager (Legal) of the petitioners Company and Smt. v. Zutshi, SDR for the respondent Collector. Shri Santhanam has stated that the Central Excise duty on Caprolactum is exempted by Notification No. 36/85-C.E., dated 17.3.1985 as amended if such Caprolactum is produced out of nylon polymer waste by the process of recycling of such waste in India. He has also stated that under Notification No. 18/84-C.E, dated 1.3.1984 Caprolactum produced out of nylon polymer waste by the process of recycling of such waste in India was exempted from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Shri Santhanam has argued that the Caprolactum produced by them were out of nylon polymer waste by the process of recycling of such waste arising in their own factory. He has stated that in a similar case this Tribunal, vide order No. S-4 & 5/88-D dated 5.1.1988 dispensed with pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and listed the appeals for early hearing on 7.2.1988. Their appeals No.E/A 3228/87-D and 3247/87-D were heard and vide order No. 160-161 of 1988-D dated 17.2.1988. the Tribunal allowed the appeals. Shri Santhanam has argued that the petitioners' case is squarely covered by the said order of the Tribunal on merits. He has also stated that according to the judgments of Allahabad High Court reported in 1985 (19) ELT 57 (Allahabad) and 1988 (33) ELT 58 (Allahabad) wholly exempted commodities are not dutiable goods. So, no penalty should have been imposed in the present case. Shri Santhanam has not pleaded for any financial hardship, but has argued on strong primafacie case in favour of the petitioners. We have also heard Smt Zutshi, learned SDR for the respondent-Collector. In view of the earlier decisions of this Tribunal in order No. S - 4 &5/88-D, dated 5.1.1988 and Order Nos.

160-161 of 1988/D dated 17.2.1983 in a similar case we dispense with the pre-deposit of duty and penalty under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and stay the recovery there of till the.

hearing of the main appeal. The learned SDR has requested for early hearing. Her request is granted. The appeal is listed for hearing on merits on 30.8.1968.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties L. M. L. Limited vs Collector of Central Excise Same Subject Excise