Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Power Tech Industries

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Power Tech Industries

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 18, 2002

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/29655

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/29655
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, a T V.K.
Decided On: Dec 18, 2002
Subject: Miscellaneous

Case Summary

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

Miscellaneous

Key legal issue: Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Power Tech Industries

Legal References

Reported In: (2003)LC127Tri(Delhi)

Excerpt

2. revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals) whereby the commissioner (appeals) held that mere putting colour cakes in a box along with brush does not amount to manufacture.3. brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of water colour boxes. respondents were purchasing colour cakes from m/s. ashok enterprises and were putting these colour cakes in the box along with brush.4. the contention of the revenue is that the colour boxes cleared by the respondents were known in the market as water colour boxes, which are different from the colour cakes, and this activity amounts to manufacture as per the definition of section 2(f) of the central excise act.5. we find that the respondents are not manufacturing colour cakes.respondents are only putting colour cakes with painting brush in a box.the issue is whether this activity, undertaken by the respondents, amounts to manufacture as per the provisions of section 2(f) of the central excise act. we find that the tribunal in the case of c.c.e. v.venelec electromech indus. (p) ltd. reported in 2002 (141) e.l.t. 156 (t) = 2002 (49) rlt 393 (cegat) held that placing of different articles of cable jointing kit in the form of kit does not amount to manufacture. the tribunal relied upon the decision of the hon'ble andhra pradesh high court in the case of xi telecom ltd. v.superintendent of central excise reported in 1999 (105) e.l.t. 263. the hon'ble andhra pradesh high court held that the identity of the items, placed in the kit is not changed. they are known in the market as such.there is no transformation in the articles, which are placed in the kit. they are marketable as such. further, no process is also involved except that all the articles are put together in one box. the hon'ble high court held that placing different articles, in a kit does not amount to manufacture. we find that the ratio of the above decision is only applicable to the.....

Full Judgment

2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that mere putting colour cakes in a box along with brush does not amount to manufacture.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of water colour boxes. Respondents were purchasing colour cakes from M/s. Ashok Enterprises and were putting these colour cakes in the box along with brush.

4. The contention of the Revenue is that the colour boxes cleared by the respondents were known in the market as water colour boxes, which are different from the colour cakes, and this activity amounts to manufacture as per the definition of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act.

5. We find that the respondents are not manufacturing colour cakes.

Respondents are only putting colour cakes with painting brush in a box.

The issue is whether this activity, undertaken by the respondents, amounts to manufacture as per the provisions of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. We find that the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v.Venelec Electromech Indus. (P) Ltd. reported in 2002 (141) E.L.T. 156 (T) = 2002 (49) RLT 393 (CEGAT) held that placing of different articles of cable jointing kit in the form of kit does not amount to manufacture. The Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of XI Telecom Ltd. v.Superintendent of Central Excise reported in 1999 (105) E.L.T. 263. The Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the identity of the items, placed in the kit is not changed. They are known in the market as such.

There is no transformation in the articles, which are placed in the kit. They are marketable as such. Further, no process is also involved except that all the articles are put together in one box. The Hon'ble High Court held that placing different articles, in a kit does not amount to manufacture. We find that the ratio of the above decision is only applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble High Court, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Power Tech Industries Same Subject Miscellaneous Same Judge S Kang, a T V.K.