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.

Power Build Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Power Build Ltd. vs Collector of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Sep 11, 1997
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/11793

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 Delhi
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Power Build Ltd.

Respondent

Collector of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(1997)(96)ELT146TriDel

Excerpt

.....and total weight. this affidavit has not been accepted by the collector (appeals) on the ground that neither any qualification or speciality of the commercial executive nor any documentary evidence in this regard has been indicated in the said affidavit. before us, the party files an additional affidavit by shri k.g. patel, works manager. in the affidavit of shri patel, it was submitted that the purpose of the control panel to be used along with vibrating feeder is to feed the bulk material from the hopper/silos without interruption and has nothing to do with determination, control and/or monitoring, directly or indirectly, the weight of the material. since they are filing an additionl evidence before us and the authorities below have had no opportunity to go into this additional evidence, we are remanding the matter to the concerned commissioner (appeals) to examine this issue afresh taking into consideration the additional affidavit of shri k.g.patel and to pass and order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the appellants. the appellants may make vise of this opportunity and produce technical literature, if any, apart from the above affidavit in support of their contention. thus, this appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Full Judgment

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay.

2. Whether Control Panel is classifiable under Tariff Item 68 as claimed by the assessee or under Tariff Item 45 as per the department is the issue to be considered in this case.

3. When the matter was posted for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. However, it was requested by them to decide the case on merits. Accordingly, we proceed to pass this order after hearing Shri D.S. Negi, ld. DR.4. It was submitted by the appellants in their written submissions that classification filed by the party in classifying the item under Tariff Item 68 was duly approved and subsequently in view of the audit objection, show cause notice was issued that Control Panel is classifiable under old Tariff Item 45 on the ground that they had a built-in-'Weighing Electronic' for measuring loads. It was the contention of the party that the Control Panel could not be independently function to determine the rate of flow and total weight and in that sense it cannot be considered as weighing machine as specified under Item No. 45. Tariff Item 45 reads as under : Item No.45 : Weighing Machines____________________________________________________________________________Item No. Tariff Description Rate of Duty____________________________________________________________________________45 Machinery and appliances for Fifteen per cent ad determination of weight including valorem.Explanation : This item does not include scales having arms of equal length which determine weight by balancing the object against weight.

5. The party has filed an affidavit of Commercial Executive before the Collector (Appeals) in support of their contention that Control Panels could not function independently to determine the rate of flow and total weight. This affidavit has not been accepted by the Collector (Appeals) on the ground that neither any qualification or speciality of the Commercial Executive nor any documentary evidence in this regard has been indicated in the said affidavit. Before us, the party files an additional affidavit by Shri K.G. Patel, Works Manager. In the affidavit of Shri Patel, it was submitted that the purpose of the Control Panel to be used along with Vibrating Feeder is to feed the bulk material from the hopper/silos without interruption and has nothing to do with determination, control and/or monitoring, directly or indirectly, the weight of the material. Since they are filing an additionl evidence before us and the authorities below have had no opportunity to go into this additional evidence, we are remanding the matter to the concerned Commissioner (Appeals) to examine this issue afresh taking into consideration the additional affidavit of Shri K.G.Patel and to pass and order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the appellants. The appellants may make vise of this opportunity and produce technical literature, if any, apart from the above affidavit in support of their contention. Thus, this appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial