C.C.E. Vs. Teksons Ltd.

C.C.E. vs Teksons Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided May 06, 1998

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/13401

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/13401
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: J T P.C., S Kang
Decided On: May 06, 1998
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

C.C.E.

Respondent

Teksons Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (1998)(62)ECC393

Excerpt

the respondent herein are manufacturers of various types of nuts viz. b.s.p. type, metric type etc. but they have not obtained any central excise licence for the manufacture of such nuts. range supdt. issued a show cause notice demanding duty of rs. 4.04.357.50 for the period 25.4.84 for goods viz. nuts as perceived by the superintendent; 2. contention of the appellants have been that they manufactured and fittings of hose assembly. no manufacture of nuts takes place. the assistant collector consulted technical expert and on the basis of his opinion came to the conclusion that the goods manufactured are fittings of hose assembly and not nuts. hence he dropped the show cause notice.3. revenue in appeal before the collector of central excise (appeals) did not succeed. hence this appeal by the revenue.4. at this stage it is appropriate to set out the process of manufacture of the goods under consideration which is mentioned in the impugned order. i notice that the entire and fitting is one whose piece of mild steel. these and fittings are designed as per the requirement of the customers for the motor vehicles. there is no separate making of a nut and this is brought about by shaping and the shape is brought about by a die and a jaw like machine. the end which is threaded inside is shaped by the jaw like machine which crimps it and marks are made. the form of the nut is brought about, while shaping the entire and fittings. the end which is shaped by a jaw machine is the one which is threaded inside. the corresponding part of the end fittings is found in the motor vehicle and emerges from a wheel cylinder. this consist of a outer and a threaded metal inside with a male nipple. the corresponding part of the end fitting consisting of a outer and the threaded metal inside the male nipple is not manufactured by the respondents. the male nipple enters the female nipple and the outer cover seals itself up to the projected point. this projected point is in the shape of the.....

Full Judgment

The respondent herein are manufacturers of various types of nuts viz. B.S.P. Type, Metric type etc. But they have not obtained any Central Excise Licence for the manufacture of such nuts. Range Supdt. issued a Show cause notice demanding duty of Rs. 4.04.357.50 for the period 25.4.84 for goods viz. nuts as perceived by the superintendent; 2. Contention of the appellants have been that they manufactured and fittings of hose assembly. No manufacture of nuts takes place. The Assistant Collector consulted Technical expert and on the basis of his opinion came to the conclusion that the goods manufactured are fittings of Hose assembly and not nuts. Hence he dropped the show cause notice.

3. Revenue in appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) did not succeed. Hence this appeal by the Revenue.

4. At this stage it is appropriate to set out the process of manufacture of the goods under consideration which is mentioned in the impugned order.

I notice that the entire and fitting is one whose piece of Mild steel. These and fittings are designed as per the requirement of the customers for the motor vehicles. There is no separate making of a nut and this is brought about by shaping and the shape is brought about by a die and a jaw like machine. The end which is threaded inside is shaped by the Jaw like machine which crimps it and marks are made. The form of the nut is brought about, while shaping the entire and fittings. The end which is shaped by a jaw machine is the one which is threaded inside. The corresponding part of the end fittings is found in the motor vehicle and emerges from a wheel cylinder. This consist of a outer and a threaded metal inside with a male nipple. The corresponding part of the end fitting consisting of a outer and the threaded metal inside the male nipple is not manufactured by the respondents. The male nipple enters the female nipple and the outer cover seals itself up to the projected point.

This projected point is in the shape of the nut.

5. We have heard Ld. SDR Shri A.K. Agarwal, we observe from the Memo of appeal filed by the Revenue that the aforesaid process of manufacture as set out in the impugned order and extracted above has not been rebutted by the Revenue. From the process it is apparent that there is no separate making of nuts. Consequently the nut does not come into existence as a separate commodity. The whole commodity is end fittings of hose assembly. Accordingly there is no question of charging separate duty on a product called nut in this case. Hence we reject the appeal of the revenue.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties C.C.E. vs Teksons Ltd. Same Subject Excise Same Judge J T P.C., S Kang