Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 6]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Ecof Detergents Pvt. Ltd vs Cce Trichy on 31 March, 2009

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI


Appeal No.E/396/02

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.151/2002 (CBE) (GVN) dated 22.7.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli]

For approval and signature:

Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
Honble Mr. P.KARTHIKEYAN, Member (Technical)


1.	Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT	 (Procedure) Rules, 1982?					      :

2.	Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the 
	CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?				      	      :

3.	Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of
	the Order?								      :

4.	Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
	Authorities?							      :

	
ECOF Detergents Pvt. Ltd. 
Appellant/s

           Versus

CCE Trichy
Respondent/s

Appearance :

Shri R.Parthasarathy, Consultant Shri R.P.Meena, SDR For the Appellant/s For the Respondent/s CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Mr. P. Karthikeyan, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 31.3.2009 Date of decision : 31.3.2009 Final Order No.____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram Can a manufacturer opt for paying concessional rate of duty in terms of SSI notifications for one product in one unit and yet pay normal rate of duty on an another product manufactured in another unit, is the question for determination in the present appeal.
2) On hearing both sides, we find that this issue stands settled by the Tribunal in favour of the assessees in the case of CCE Koklata Vs Kingslay Industries Ltd., 2005 (187) ELT 510 (Tri.-Kolkatta) and CCE Madurai Vs Sagar Chlorate Pvt. Ltd., 2009 (235) ELT 478 (Tri.-Chennai) holding that the above is legally permissible. Following the ratio of the above decisions, we set aside the impugned order holding to the contra, and allow the appeal.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (P.KARTHIKEYAN) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) MEMBER (T) VICE-PRESIDENT gs 1 2