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.

U.P. Instruments Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

U.P. Instruments Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Sep 28, 1999
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/16863

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

U.P. Instruments Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(2000)(115)ELT123TriDel

Excerpt

1. along with this appeal, application no. e/s/595/99-b was filed praying for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of the amount levied by the impugned order. notice was served on the appellant of the posting for hearing of the stay petition. advocate representing the appellant has sent an application stating that he is pre-occupied in preparation and filing of his income tax return and so prayed for adjournment. to say the least, the grounds mentioned by the counsel for adjournment of the application for stay is not at all convincing.2. the appellant is a small scale undertaking belonging to the government of u.p. they inter alia manufacture solar cookers. solar cookers are exempted from payment of duty as per notification no.205/88. appellant manufacture not only solar cookers but also solar cookers with electrical back-up. such cookers have been taken to be outside the purview of notification no. 205/88. accordingly, by the impugned order a sum of rs. 1,35,964/-has been levied as excise duty on 1236 pcs. of solar cookers with electric back-up. a penalty of rs. 1,35,964/- was also imposed on the appellant under section 11 ac of the act.3. it is common case that solar cookers are exempted from payment of duty by virtue of notification no. 205/88. the question whether the solar cooker backed up with electrical energy will be entitled to the benefit of the notification is an arguable point. in such circumstances, since the appellant company is one owned by government of u.p., we exempt the appellant from depositing the amount of duty imposed by the impugned order as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal. the stay petition is ordered accordingly. post the appeal for final hearing on 4th january, 2000. issue notice.

Full Judgment

1. Along with this appeal, Application No. E/S/595/99-B was filed praying for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of the amount levied by the impugned order. Notice was served on the appellant of the posting for hearing of the Stay Petition. Advocate representing the appellant has sent an application stating that he is pre-occupied in preparation and filing of his Income Tax Return and so prayed for adjournment. To say the least, the grounds mentioned by the Counsel for adjournment of the application for Stay is not at all convincing.

2. The appellant is a small scale undertaking belonging to the Government of U.P. They inter alia manufacture Solar Cookers. Solar Cookers are exempted from payment of duty as per Notification No.205/88. Appellant manufacture not only solar cookers but also solar cookers with electrical back-up. Such Cookers have been taken to be outside the purview of Notification No. 205/88. Accordingly, by the impugned order a sum of Rs. 1,35,964/-has been levied as excise duty on 1236 PCS. of solar cookers with electric back-up. A penalty of Rs. 1,35,964/- was also imposed on the appellant under Section 11 AC of the Act.

3. It is common case that solar cookers are exempted from payment of duty by virtue of Notification No. 205/88. The question whether the solar cooker backed up with electrical energy will be entitled to the benefit of the Notification is an arguable point. In such circumstances, since the appellant company is one owned by Government of U.P., we exempt the appellant from depositing the amount of duty imposed by the impugned order as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal. The stay petition is ordered accordingly. Post the appeal for final hearing on 4th January, 2000. Issue notice.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial