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.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Bajaj Auto Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jun 23, 1998
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/13697

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 Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Bajaj Auto Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(1999)(63)ECC625

Excerpt

1. the appeal has been filed by the commissioner of central excise and customs, aurangabad against the order dt. 28.2.91 passed by the commissioner of central excise (appeals), mumbai. the facts are that respondents applied to the jurisdictional assistant commissioner for transfer of draw die petrol tank which is a die for machine trial to another party in mumbai, who manufacture press machine. the draw die petrol tank had been received by the respondents under chapter x procedure of the central excise rules under nil duty gate pass on 11.5.85. the assistant commissioner by his letter dt. 3.1.90 informed them that they cannot remove the draw die petrol tank under rule 196bb of central excise rules, because the goods have been received under chapter x procedure, and the notification under which they were so received no. 167/79 had since been withdrawn. the appeal against the assistant commissioner's order was allowed by the commissioner (appeals) who held that once the goods are received under chapter x procedure, then further removals are to be regulated under the provisions of rule 196bb.2. shri a.r.s. kumar, the ld. jdr referred to the grounds of appeal and submitted that though the goods were received under chapter x procedure while notification no. 167/79 was in force, the provisions of chapter x of central excise rules cannot be applied even after the notification itself has been withdrawn. the respondents are not present, but have asked for decision on merits. we find that the notification no. 167/79 is one which grants the exemption to the goods in question subject to following the procedure of chapter x of central excise rules. in this case at the time of receipt of the goods into the respondent's factory, the notificalion was in force, and thus it has been received under chapter x procedure. rule 196bb enables goods received under chapter x procedure to be cleared outside for testing the carrying out of any other operation necessary for the completion of.....

Full Judgment

1. The appeal has been filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad against the order dt. 28.2.91 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. The facts are that respondents applied to the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for transfer of Draw Die Petrol Tank which is a Die for machine trial to another party in Mumbai, who manufacture Press machine. The Draw Die Petrol Tank had been received by the Respondents under Chapter X Procedure of the Central Excise Rules under nil duty gate pass on 11.5.85. The Assistant Commissioner by his letter dt. 3.1.90 informed them that they cannot remove the draw die petrol tank under Rule 196BB of Central Excise Rules, because the goods have been received under Chapter X Procedure, and the Notification under which they were so received No. 167/79 had since been withdrawn. The appeal against the Assistant Commissioner's order was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who held that once the goods are received under Chapter X Procedure, then further removals are to be regulated under the provisions of Rule 196BB.2. Shri A.R.S. Kumar, the Ld. JDR referred to the grounds of appeal and submitted that though the goods were received under Chapter X procedure while Notification no. 167/79 was in force, the provisions of Chapter X of Central Excise Rules cannot be applied even after the notification itself has been withdrawn. The Respondents are not present, but have asked for decision on merits. We find that the Notification No. 167/79 is one which grants the exemption to the goods in question subject to following the procedure of Chapter X of Central Excise Rules. In this case at the time of receipt of the goods into the respondent's factory, the Notificalion was in force, and thus it has been received under Chapter X procedure. Rule 196BB enables goods received under Chapter X procedure to be cleared outside for testing the carrying out of any other operation necessary for the completion of the industrial process and for it to be returned, thereafter, to the assessees premises. In such a scheme of the rules, therefore, once the material has been received as per the condition in the Notification by following the Chapter X procedure, and, as we find in this case, it has also been put to the intended use, then the sending out of the goods for carrying out further process will be fully covered by Rule 196BB which is specifically for the purpose in respect of excisable goods obtained under Rule 192. In such a situation, we are in agreement with the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that Notification 169/79 enabled appellants to receive the goods under Chapter X procedure and the withdrawal of this Notification will not deprive the status-of the goods as having been received under Chapter X procedure. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial