Dcm Engineering Products Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.,

Dcm Engineering Products vs Commissioner of C. Ex.,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 12, 2002

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/27549

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/27549
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: K Usha, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Feb 12, 2002
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dcm Engineering Products

Respondent

Commissioner of C. Ex.,

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(142)ELT105TriDel

Excerpt

1. the issue that has come up for consideration is whether the finding of the commissioner (appeals) confirming the levy of duty in respect of cost of pattern tooling carried out by the appellant for m/s. mahindra & mahindra is to be sustained. it is the case of the appellant that the apportioned cost of pattern tooling for m/s. mahindra & mahindra will be added towards assessable value of casting when regular supply of castings commences. the appellant would contend that the demand of duty is premature as during the relevant period there was no production on the pattern tooling designed for m/s. mahindra & mahindra ltd. this contention was not accepted by the commissioner (appeals) for the reason that the appellant did not submit any evidence at the personal hearing on 18-7-2001 that supply has been made to m/s. mahindra & mahindra ltd. and cost apportioned.2. it is contented by the appellant that even though m/s. mahindra & mahindra had written in their letter dated 9-12-98 that they would lift 2000-3000 castings during the period up to the end of 2000, they did not lift any quantity of case transmission castings for which the pattern was developed by the appellants in their factory. therefore, no duty liability can be cast on the appellant. we find merit in the contention raised by the appellant. there is no material available before the commissioner (appeals) to show that during the relevant period supply of castings had been made to m/s. mahindra & mahindra ltd. that being so, the demand of duty has to be held as pre-mature.the learned counsel for the appellant brought to our notice certain invoices relating to the supply made to m/s. mahindra & mahindra after the relevant period. we, therefore, make it clear that it will be open to the revenue to make the demand in respect of such supply as and when it is completed. with the above observation, we set aside the order impugned and allow the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The issue that has come up for consideration is whether the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the levy of duty in respect of cost of pattern tooling carried out by the appellant for M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra is to be sustained. It is the case of the appellant that the apportioned cost of pattern tooling for M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra will be added towards assessable value of casting when regular supply of castings commences. The appellant would contend that the demand of duty is premature as during the relevant period there was no production on the pattern tooling designed for M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. This contention was not accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) for the reason that the appellant did not submit any evidence at the personal hearing on 18-7-2001 that supply has been made to M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and cost apportioned.

2. It is contented by the appellant that even though M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra had written in their letter dated 9-12-98 that they would lift 2000-3000 castings during the period up to the end of 2000, they did not lift any quantity of Case Transmission Castings for which the pattern was developed by the appellants in their factory. Therefore, no duty liability can be cast on the appellant. We find merit in the contention raised by the appellant. There is no material available before the Commissioner (Appeals) to show that during the relevant period supply of castings had been made to M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. That being so, the demand of duty has to be held as pre-mature.

The learned Counsel for the appellant brought to our notice certain invoices relating to the supply made to M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra after the relevant period. We, therefore, make it clear that it will be open to the Revenue to make the demand in respect of such supply as and when it is completed. With the above observation, we set aside the order impugned and allow the appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Dcm Engineering Products vs Commissioner of C. Ex., Same Subject MRTP Same Judge K Usha, N T C.N.B.