Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Suresh Engg. Works

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Suresh Engg. Works

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Oct 18, 2002

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/29132

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/29132
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, J T J.H.
Decided On: Oct 18, 2002
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Suresh Engg. Works

Legal References

Reported In: (2003)(157)ELT288Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of various engineering products falling under chapter 73, 84 and 85 of the schedule to the central excise tariff act, 1985. in addition, they also carry out the work of repair at the site on old duty paid equipments supplied by customers. vide letter dated 1-6-1995, ongc entered into a lumpsum contract for repair of 5 nos. of heat exchangers by replacement of new tubes. the department was of the view that this amounted to assembly of new bundle tubes and since the heat exchanger mainly consists of bundle of tubes, the repair is process of manufacture of part of heat exchanger excisable under chapter heading 8419.00. the asstt. commissioner directed that the assembly of tube bundles was required to be cleared on payment of duty at the rate of 15% ad valorem on the entire contract value. the commissioner (appeals) upheld the contention of the manufacturers that the process undertaken by them was repair/recondition not amounting to manufacture. hence, the appeal by the revenue.2. we have heard both sides and find that the issue is no longer res integra, having been settled in favour of the assessees by the decision of the tribunal in the case of shriram refrigeration industries ltd. v.cce, hyderabad [1986 (26) e.l.t. 353 (tribunal)], wherein, it was held that repairing and reconditioning of defective compressors did not amount to manufacture. in the case of metro tyres ltd. v. cce, chandigarh [1996 (84) e.l.t. 485], the tribunal has held that repairing and reconditioning of old and defective electric fans by replacement of parts, rewinding of motor, refixing of new and old number plates does not amount to manufacture as it does not result in production of a new excisable commodity.3. following the ratio of the above orders, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of various engineering products falling under Chapter 73, 84 and 85 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In addition, they also carry out the work of repair at the site on old duty paid equipments supplied by customers. Vide letter dated 1-6-1995, ONGC entered into a lumpsum contract for repair of 5 Nos. of Heat Exchangers by replacement of new tubes. The Department was of the view that this amounted to assembly of new bundle tubes and since the heat exchanger mainly consists of bundle of tubes, the repair is process of manufacture of part of heat exchanger excisable under Chapter heading 8419.00. The Asstt. Commissioner directed that the assembly of tube bundles was required to be cleared on payment of duty at the rate of 15% ad valorem on the entire contract value. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the contention of the manufacturers that the process undertaken by them was repair/recondition not amounting to manufacture. Hence, the appeal by the Revenue.

2. We have heard both sides and find that the issue is no longer res integra, having been settled in favour of the assessees by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. v.CCE, Hyderabad [1986 (26) E.L.T. 353 (Tribunal)], wherein, it was held that repairing and reconditioning of defective compressors did not amount to manufacture. In the case of Metro Tyres Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh [1996 (84) E.L.T. 485], the Tribunal has held that repairing and reconditioning of old and defective electric fans by replacement of parts, rewinding of motor, refixing of new and old number plates does not amount to manufacture as it does not result in production of a new excisable commodity.

3. Following the ratio of the above orders, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Suresh Engg. Works Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge J Balasundaram, J T J.H.