Commissioner of Cen. Excise Vs. Toshniwal Instruments

Commissioner of Cen. Excise vs Toshniwal Instruments

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Aug 22, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/31927

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/31927
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram
Decided On: Aug 22, 2003
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Respondent

Toshniwal Instruments

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(163)ELT103Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....with applications for cod which have been made.2. since the original appeal was a joint appeal, i condone the delay in filing the supplementary appeals.4. now i take up the appeals for hearing. the assessees had originally cleared conductivity meters under invoices on payment of duty for exhibition to customers and the machines were brought back to the factory after demonstration and declarations under rule 173l were filed. the machines were reconditioned and recalibrated and cleared again on payment of duty. the refund claims filed were rejected by the addl.commissioner on the ground that since the goods were initially sent for exhibition and not for home consumption, the refund claims do not fall within the scope of rule 173l. the commissioner(appeals) held that the cases are covered by the provisions of rule 173l which provides for refund of duty paid on manufactured excisable goods issued for home consumption from a factory which are returned to the same factory or any other factory for being remade, reconditioned or subjected to any other similar treatment. hence, these appeals by the revenue.5. on hearing the sr.departmental representative and noting that the ground raised before me viz. that the assessees did not maintain the prescribed registers under rule 173l was not raised in the show cause notices which proposed rejection of refund claims only on the ground that no re-processing was carried out on return of the goods after exhibition, and also noting that there is no dispute that the goods initially cleared on payment of duty for exhibition were returned and the same goods were cleared once again on payment of duty after carrying out the process of recalibration, i hold that the revenue has not made out any case. i find no reason to interfere with the order of the commissioner(a) and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeals of the revenue.

Full Judgment

1. In these cases the Addl.Commissioner of Central Excise had passed 14 Orders-in-Original on the same issue, rejecting 14 refund claims files by the assessees/respondents, against which appeals were preferred before the Commissioner(Appeals) who by a common order, set aside the adjudication orders and held that the assessees were eligible to refund. The Revenue initially filed one joint appeal against the impugned order within the statutory period of limitation; subsequently they were directed to file supplementary appeals along with applications for COD which have been made.

2. Since the original appeal was a joint appeal, I condone the delay in filing the supplementary appeals.

4. Now I take up the appeals for hearing. The assessees had originally cleared conductivity meters under invoices on payment of duty for exhibition to customers and the machines were brought back to the factory after demonstration and declarations under Rule 173L were filed. The machines were reconditioned and recalibrated and cleared again on payment of duty. The refund claims filed were rejected by the Addl.Commissioner on the ground that since the goods were initially sent for exhibition and not for home consumption, the refund claims do not fall within the scope of Rule 173L. The Commissioner(Appeals) held that the cases are covered by the provisions of Rule 173L which provides for refund of duty paid on manufactured excisable goods issued for home consumption from a factory which are returned to the same factory or any other factory for being remade, reconditioned or subjected to any other similar treatment. Hence, these appeals by the Revenue.

5. On hearing the Sr.departmental representative and noting that the ground raised before me viz. that the assessees did not maintain the prescribed registers under Rule 173L was not raised in the show cause notices which proposed rejection of refund claims only on the ground that no re-processing was carried out on return of the goods after exhibition, and also noting that there is no dispute that the goods initially cleared on payment of duty for exhibition were returned and the same goods were cleared once again on payment of duty after carrying out the process of recalibration, I hold that the Revenue has not made out any case. I find no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner(A) and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeals of the Revenue.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Cen. Excise vs Toshniwal Instruments Same Subject Excise Same Judge J Balasundaram