Arham Spinning Mills Vs. Cce

Arham Spinning Mills vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 21, 2007

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/46495

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/46495
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: R Abichandani
Decided On: Nov 21, 2007
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

Arham Spinning Mills

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (2008)12STJ281CESTATNew(Delhi)

Excerpt

1. after hearing both sides and taking note of the fact that, on a similar issue, a division bench of this tribunal has given benefit of the explanation to rule 2(p) of the cenvat credit rules, 2004 in india cement ltd. v. cce reported in 2007 (80) rlt 719, it would not be possible to take the view that the explanation was applicable in cases where no taxable service is provided nor any manufacturing activity is done, as would appear from the wordings of the explanation, as submitted by the learned authorised representative for the department.2. since the appellant has made out a, prima facie, case, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit of the tax and penalty payable under the impugned order during the hearing of this appeal. the application is accordingly allowed. the appeal will come up for final hearing in its due course.

Full Judgment

1. After hearing both sides and taking note of the fact that, on a similar issue, a Division Bench of this Tribunal has given benefit of the explanation to Rule 2(p) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in India Cement Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2007 (80) RLT 719, it would not be possible to take the view that the explanation was applicable in cases where no taxable service is provided nor any manufacturing activity is done, as would appear from the wordings of the explanation, as submitted by the learned authorised representative for the Department.

2. Since the appellant has made out a, prima facie, case, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit of the tax and penalty payable under the impugned order during the hearing of this appeal. The application is accordingly allowed. The appeal will come up for final hearing in its due course.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Arham Spinning Mills vs Cce Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge R Abichandani