Collector of Central Excise Vs. A-1 Bright

Collector of Central Excise vs A-1 Bright

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Oct 12, 1999

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/16968

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/16968
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Oct 12, 1999
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

A-1 Bright

Legal References

Reported In: (2001)(130)ELT896TriDel

Excerpt

1. the issue involved in this appeal preferred by the revenue is whether process of electroplating of duty paid m.s. wire amounts to manufacture.2. when the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice. we, therefore, heard shri r.d. negi, sdr and perused the records.3. the issue involved is no more res integra as the hon'ble supreme court in the case of gujarat steel tubes ltd. v. state of kerala, 1989 (42) e.l.t. 513 (s.c.), held that limited purpose of galvanisation does not seem to bring a new commodity into existence and the steel pipe continues to be the same product even after galvanisation. following the ratio of the supreme court's decision we find no infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly the appeal filed by the revenue is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. The issue involved in this appeal preferred by the Revenue is whether process of electroplating of duty paid M.S. wire amounts to manufacture.

2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice. We, therefore, heard Shri R.D. Negi, SDR and perused the records.

3. The issue involved is no more res integra as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1989 (42) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.), held that limited purpose of galvanisation does not seem to bring a new commodity into existence and the steel pipe continues to be the same product even after galvanisation. Following the ratio of the Supreme Court's decision we find no infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Collector of Central Excise vs A-1 Bright Same Subject Service Tax