Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. M/S.Vijaya Chemicals and Toilet Works (Telengana) - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/942416
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided OnOct-27-2009
Case NumberE/574 of 2003 and E/CO/38 of 2004
Judge THE HONOURABLE DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. P.K. DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AppellantCommissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
RespondentM/S.Vijaya Chemicals and Toilet Works (Telengana)
Advocates:Shri C. Rangaraju, SDR. S/Shri R. Raghavan and M. Kannan, Advocates.
Excerpt:
per p.k. das heard both sides and perused the records. 2. revenue filed this appeal against the order of commissioner insofar as cum-duty benefit has been extended to the respondent following the decision of the hon’ble supreme court in the case of commissioner of central excise vs maruti udyog ltd. and ors. 2002 (49) r.l.t.1. the learned dr on behalf of the revenue submits that the department filed review petition before the hon’ble supreme court against the said decision. learned advocate on behalf of the respondent submits that the hon ble supreme court dismissed the review petition filed by the revenue as reported in 2005 (179) e.l.t.a.102 (s.c.). 3. in view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the commissioner (appeals). accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. cross objection is disposed of.
Judgment:

Per P.K. Das

Heard both sides and perused the records.

2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner insofar as cum-duty benefit has been extended to the respondent following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Ors. 2002 (49) R.L.T.1. The learned DR on behalf of the Revenue submits that the department filed review petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the said decision. Learned advocate on behalf of the respondent submits that the Hon ble Supreme Court dismissed the review petition filed by the Revenue as reported in 2005 (179) E.L.T.A.102 (S.C.).

3. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Cross objection is disposed of.