Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Target Marketing

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Target Marketing

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jun 10, 2002

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/28367

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/28367
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T Gowri, G Srinivasan
Decided On: Jun 10, 2002
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

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Target Marketing

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(82)ECC426

Excerpt

1. the two questions for consideration in this appeal are the classification of uninterrupted power supply (ups) manufactured by the respondent and inclusion in the value of such ups the batteries for such machines that it supplied.2. the classification determined by the larger bench of the tribunal of such goods under heading 85.04 in its decision in luminous electronics pvt. ltd. v. cce having been confirmed by the supreme court while disposing of the appeal by j.k. synthetics ltd. (civil appeal no. 9175 of 1995), we confirm the correctness of the classification determined by the commissioner (appeals).3. the commissioner (appeals) has found that the respondent supplied the batteries from its depot to buyer, and after examination of figures, noted that the number of batteries supplied did not necessarily tally with the number of ups supplied and thus concluded that the activity of supply of batteries was not necessarily related to the manufacture of ups. the appeal does not cite any material to question his conclusion. we therefore decline to interfere.

Full Judgment

1. The two questions for consideration in this appeal are the classification of Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) manufactured by the respondent and inclusion in the value of such UPS the batteries for such machines that it supplied.

2. The classification determined by the larger bench of the Tribunal of such goods under heading 85.04 in its decision in Luminous Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE having been confirmed by the Supreme Court while disposing of the appeal by J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 9175 of 1995), we confirm the correctness of the classification determined by the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) has found that the respondent supplied the batteries from its depot to buyer, and after examination of figures, noted that the number of batteries supplied did not necessarily tally with the number of UPS supplied and thus concluded that the activity of supply of batteries was not necessarily related to the manufacture of UPS. The appeal does not cite any material to question his conclusion. We therefore decline to interfere.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Target Marketing Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S T Gowri, G Srinivasan