Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Safex Fire Systems

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Safex Fire Systems

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 03, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/29757

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/29757
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T Gowri, G Srinivasan
Decided On: Jan 03, 2003
Subject: Intellectual Property

Case Summary

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

Intellectual Property

Key legal issue: Intellectual Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Safex Fire Systems

Legal References

Reported In: (2003)(154)ELT389Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the question for consideration in this appeal is whether, in computing the value of clearance of goods manufactured by the appellant for the purposes of notification 1/93, the value of cylinders comprising parts of fire extinguishers that the respondent refills with carbon dioxide is to be included. in the order impugned in this appeal, the commissioner (appeals) has held that these are not to be included.2. we do not find it possible to accept the contention in the appeal, reiterated by the departmental representative, that refilling of the empty cylinder with carbon dioxide is a process of manufacture. there is nothing in the department's appeal to support such a claim. we do not see how a new product emerges by simple act of refilling a cylinder with carbon dioxide. the object of the cylinder in the fire extinguisher is merely act as a container for carbon dioxide. the carbon dioxide is released by application of force on a plunger mounted in the extinguisher the other end of which is connected to the seal.the assessee therefore, manufactured neither cylinders nor carbon dioxide. this is in fact the ratio of the decision of the tribunal in appeal e/4352/95 in safex fire services v. cce [2001 (127) e.l.t. 182 (tribunal)].

Full Judgment

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether, in computing the value of clearance of goods manufactured by the appellant for the purposes of Notification 1/93, the value of cylinders comprising parts of fire extinguishers that the respondent refills with carbon dioxide is to be included. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that these are not to be included.

2. We do not find it possible to accept the contention in the appeal, reiterated by the departmental representative, that refilling of the empty cylinder with carbon dioxide is a process of manufacture. There is nothing in the department's appeal to support such a claim. We do not see how a new product emerges by simple act of refilling a cylinder with carbon dioxide. The object of the cylinder in the fire extinguisher is merely act as a container for carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide is released by application of force on a plunger mounted in the extinguisher the other end of which is connected to the seal.

The assessee therefore, manufactured neither cylinders nor carbon dioxide. This is in fact the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in appeal E/4352/95 in Safex Fire Services v. CCE [2001 (127) E.L.T. 182 (Tribunal)].

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Safex Fire Systems Same Subject Intellectual Property Same Judge S T Gowri, G Srinivasan