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.

Cce, Chennai Vs. JaIn Cable Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Cce, Chennai vs JaIn Cable Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai Decided Mar 23, 2010
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/942273

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 Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
E/107 of 2004 and E/110 of 2004
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, Chennai

Advocate Shri T,H. Rao, SDR, for the appellants.

Respondent

JaIn Cable Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Excerpt

per: dr. chittaranjan satapathy, heard the ld. sdr. no one is present on behalf of the respondents. in both these cases the grievance of the department is that the authorities below have allowed assessment on the basis of cum duty price. in the light of the settled law in this regard, these two departmental appeals have no merit. hence, both the appeals are dismissed.

Full Judgment

Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy,

Heard the Ld. SDR. No one is present on behalf of the respondents. In both these cases the grievance of the department is that the authorities below have allowed assessment on the basis of cum duty price. In the light of the settled law in this regard, these two departmental appeals have no merit. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial