Collector of Customs Vs. Lalit Stainless Steel (i) Ltd.

Collector of Customs vs Lalit Stainless Steel (i) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 28, 1994

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/7989

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/7989
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Nov 28, 1994
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of Customs

Respondent

Lalit Stainless Steel (i) Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (1995)(77)ELT617TriDel

Excerpt

.....central excise duty on the goods in question was exempt under notification no.16/83, additional duty charged under section 3 of the customs tariff act is not leviable upon the goods which have brone the incidence of basic customs duty.2. the brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein established a unit in the kandla free trade zone for manufacture and export of stainless steel utensils. they imported stainless steel sheets and cleared the same without payment of duty under notification no. 77/80, dated 17-4-1980. in terms of para 2-a(ii) of the said notification, they cleared various consignments of scrap generated during the course .of production to the domestic tariff area on payment of duty. subsequently, they claimed refund of countervailing duty paid by them contending that according to notification no, 16/83, dated 14x2-1983, central excise duty on scrap/waste generated and cleared to dta is exempt and hence countervailing duty is not leviable. the refund applications were rejected by the asstt. collector of customs. the lower appellate authority extended the benefit of notification no.16/83 following the order of the tribunal in the case of presto industries (supra). the revenue is aggrieved by the order of the collector (appeals) which they challenge on the ground that according to the said notification, the excise duty chargeable under section 3 of the central excises and salt act, 1944 exempted all goods when cleared to dta on payment of duty of customs leviable thereon which would include countervailing duty chargeable on such goods equal to the excise duty charged on such goods.3. the learned dr sh. somesh arora brings t6 our notice the fact that the order of tribunal in the case of presto industries has been appealed against the revenue before the supreme court.4. we have heard the learned dr and shri mehta, learned advocate who contends that in the absence of any distinction made between the earlier order of the tribunal and this case,.....

Full Judgment

1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Collector (Appeals) extending the benefit of Notification No. 16/83-C.E., dated 11-2-1983 to the respondents herein, following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs, Kandla v. Presto Industries (Final Order No. 590-591/91-C, dated 12-9-1991) holding that since Central Excise duty on the goods in question was exempt under Notification No.16/83, additional duty charged under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act is not leviable upon the goods which have brone the incidence of basic customs duty.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein established a unit in the Kandla Free Trade Zone for manufacture and export of stainless steel utensils. They imported stainless steel sheets and cleared the same without payment of duty under Notification No. 77/80, dated 17-4-1980. In terms of para 2-A(ii) of the said Notification, they cleared various consignments of scrap generated during the course .of production to the Domestic Tariff Area on payment of duty. Subsequently, they claimed refund of countervailing duty paid by them contending that according to Notification No, 16/83, dated 14X2-1983, Central Excise duty on scrap/waste generated and cleared to DTA is exempt and hence countervailing duty is not leviable. The refund applications were rejected by the Asstt. Collector of Customs. The lower Appellate authority extended the benefit of Notification No.16/83 following the order of the Tribunal in the case of Presto Industries (supra). The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Collector (Appeals) which they challenge on the ground that according to the said notification, the excise duty chargeable under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 exempted all goods when cleared to DTA on payment of duty of Customs leviable thereon which would include countervailing duty chargeable on such goods equal to the Excise duty charged on such goods.

3. The learned DR Sh. Somesh Arora brings t6 our notice the fact that the order of Tribunal in the case of Presto Industries has been appealed against the Revenue before the Supreme Court.

4. We have heard the learned DR and Shri Mehta, learned Advocate who contends that in the absence of any distinction made between the earlier order of the Tribunal and this case, the department has not made out any ground to warrant a different view being taken from the earlier one.

5. We agree. We see not reason to interfere with the finding of the lower Appellate Authority and accordingly uphold the impugned order and reject the appeals of the Revenue.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Collector of Customs vs Lalit Stainless Steel (i) Ltd. Same Subject Excise

Excise Domestic tariff area Countervailing duty Free Trade Zone supreme court final order Excise duty