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. M/S Botliboy and Co. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise, vs M/S Botliboy and Co. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Aug 23, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/25119

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
Decided On
Subject
MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Respondent

M/S Botliboy and Co. Ltd.

Excerpt

1. this appeal filed by the revenue was argued by shri sarkar, d.r. the respondent was not represented in spite of notice.2. the assessee manufactured generator sets. these were cleared along with electric batteries. the value of the batteries was included in the value of the generator sets and credit of duty paid on the batteries was taken. show cause notice was issued seeking recovery of the credit.the asstt. collector dropped the notice holding that batteries were essential components of generator sets. on a reference made by the revenue, the commissioner (appeals) upheld the lower decision relying upon the tribunal judgment in the case of cce vs. videocon vcr[1996(83)elt436] in which it was held that where batteries were used in the remote control of tv, credit of duty paid thereupon was eligible. against this order, this appeal has been filed. reliance was placed on the tribunal judgment in the case of cce, coimbatore vs.ashok layland [1996(83)elt 364].3. i have seen both the judgments. the use of a particular input in a particular final product has to be examined regard being had to the characteristics of the final product. the tribunal had examined the eligibility of batteries fitted with the generate sets in the judgment of classics electronics vs cce, chandigarh 4. since the facts are identical, the ratio of the last named judgment will apply to this case. the appeal from the revenue is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. This appeal filed by the Revenue was argued by Shri Sarkar, D.R. The respondent was not represented in spite of notice.

2. The assessee manufactured generator sets. These were cleared along with electric batteries. The value of the batteries was included in the value of the generator sets and credit of duty paid on the batteries was taken. Show cause notice was issued seeking recovery of the credit.

The Asstt. Collector dropped the notice holding that batteries were essential components of generator sets. On a reference made by the Revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the lower decision relying upon the Tribunal judgment in the case of CCE vs. Videocon VCR[1996(83)ELT436] in which it was held that where batteries were used in the remote control of TV, credit of duty paid thereupon was eligible. Against this order, this appeal has been filed. Reliance was placed on the Tribunal judgment in the case of CCE, Coimbatore vs.

Ashok Layland [1996(83)ELT 364].

3. I have seen both the judgments. The use of a particular input in a particular final product has to be examined regard being had to the characteristics of the final product. The Tribunal had examined the eligibility of batteries fitted with the generate sets in the judgment of Classics Electronics vs CCE, Chandigarh 4. Since the facts are identical, the ratio of the last named judgment will apply to this case. The appeal from the Revenue is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial