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.

Arvind Singh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Arvind Singh vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jun 18, 2002
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/28416

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
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Arvind Singh

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(2002)LC543Tri(Delhi)

Excerpt

1. the common issue arising in these appeals is whether refrigeration plants erected by the appellants can be subjected to excise duty. this issue is already covered in favour of the assessees by the decision of this tribunal in the case of m/s. virdi brothers reported in 2001 (132) e.l.t. 86 (t). this is also covered by an order passed by the central board of excise and customs under section 37b - order no.58/1/2002-cx., dated 15-1-2002. the relevant portion of the order reads as under : "(iii) re frigeration/air-conditioning plants : these are basically systems comprising of compressors, ducting, pipings, insulators and sometimes cooling towers, etc. they are in the nature of systems and not machines as a whole. they come into existence only by assembly and connection of various components and parts. though each component is dutiable, the refrigeration/air-conditioning system as a whole cannot be considered to be excisable goods. air-conditioning units, however, would continue to remain dutiable as per the central excise tariff." 2. in the light of the above, these appeals are to be allowed. it is very unfortunate that the commissioner (appeals) did not consider it mandatory on him to follow the ratio of a decision of this tribunal, even when it was brought to his notice. in paragraph 4 of the impugned order, the commissioner (appeals) has referred to 2001 (132) h.l.t. 86 (t), but he has failed to give the reason for not following the binding decision of this tribunal.3. in the result, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals stand allowed.

Full Judgment

1. The common issue arising in these appeals is whether refrigeration plants erected by the appellants can be subjected to excise duty. This issue is already covered in favour of the assessees by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Virdi Brothers reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 86 (T). This is also covered by an order passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs under Section 37B - Order No.58/1/2002-CX., dated 15-1-2002. The relevant portion of the order reads as under : "(iii) Re frigeration/Air-conditioning plants : These are basically systems comprising of compressors, ducting, pipings, insulators and sometimes cooling towers, etc. They are in the nature of systems and not machines as a whole. They come into existence only by assembly and connection of various components and parts. Though each component is dutiable, the refrigeration/air-conditioning system as a whole cannot be considered to be excisable goods. Air-conditioning units, however, would continue to remain dutiable as per the Central Excise Tariff." 2. In the light of the above, these appeals are to be allowed. It is very unfortunate that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider it mandatory on him to follow the ratio of a decision of this Tribunal, even when it was brought to his notice. In paragraph 4 of the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has referred to 2001 (132) H.L.T. 86 (T), but he has failed to give the reason for not following the binding decision of this Tribunal.

3. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals stand allowed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial