Cotekar Electronics Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Cotekar Electronics vs Commissioner of C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Decided Jul 30, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/31768

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/31768
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Judge: G B Deva, S T S.S.
Decided On: Jul 30, 2003
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

Cotekar Electronics

Advocate Shri. Rajesh Chander Kumar

Respondent

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(163)ELT94Tri(Bang.)

Excerpt

.....cleaning process also, exemption as such cannot be extended. he also referred to the catalogue wherein it was specified that the item in questions is designed for effective low cost cleansing and degreasing of metal, plastic and composite engineered components.4. we have carefully considered the matter. the goods are eligible for benefit of exemption in terms of notification no. 65/1994 subject to the condition that the importer shall, within such period as the assistant collector of customs may specify in this behalf, produce a certificate from the assistant collector of central excise, in whose jurisdiction the factory manufacturing fuel injection, equipment is situated, to the effect that the said goods have been installed in the importer's own factory for the manufacture of fuel injection equipment, as specified in clause (d) of the said notification. this condition has been fulfilled, as admitted by both sides. the department wants to deny the exemption on the ground that since the process of cleaning was also done by the said machine, the benefit in terms of the said notification cannot be extended. it is difficult to conceive this proposition. no restriction is forthcoming in the said notification. in the absence of any restriction and since cleaning is also one of the processes as explained, we do not find any justification in denying the benefit of exemption in terms of the notification as it was rightly urged by the counsel. in these facts and circumstances, we do not find any valid reason to deny the exemption and in the result, the appeal is allowed, with consequential relief, if any.

Full Judgment

1. The short point to be considered in this case is whether Ultra Seal Cascade Washing Machine is exempted or not in terms of Notification 65/1994, dated 1-3-1994.

3. Shri Rajesh Chander Kumar, appearing for the appellant, submitted that as per column 4 of the table, Machinery, tools or instruments falling under Chapters 82, 84, 85 and 90 of the First Schedule are exempted if they are used for manufacture of Fuel Injection Equipments.

He said that since the conditions of the said notification are complied with, there is no justification to deny the benefit. The Department was of the view that since the machine is doing the cleaning process also, exemption as such cannot be extended. He also referred to the catalogue wherein it was specified that the item in questions is designed for effective low cost cleansing and degreasing of metal, plastic and composite engineered components.

4. We have carefully considered the matter. The goods are eligible for benefit of exemption in terms of notification No. 65/1994 subject to the condition that the importer shall, within such period as the Assistant Collector of Customs may specify in this behalf, produce a certificate from the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, in whose jurisdiction the factory manufacturing fuel injection, equipment is situated, to the effect that the said goods have been installed in the importer's own factory for the manufacture of fuel injection equipment, as specified in Clause (d) of the said notification. This condition has been fulfilled, as admitted by both sides. The Department wants to deny the exemption on the ground that since the process of cleaning was also done by the said machine, the benefit in terms of the said notification cannot be extended. It is difficult to conceive this proposition. No restriction is forthcoming in the said notification. In the absence of any restriction and since cleaning is also one of the processes as explained, we do not find any justification in denying the benefit of exemption in terms of the notification as it was rightly urged by the Counsel. In these facts and circumstances, we do not find any valid reason to deny the exemption and in the result, the appeal is allowed, with consequential relief, if any.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT · 2003 Same Parties Cotekar Electronics vs Commissioner of C. Ex. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge G B Deva, S T S.S.