Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kafila Forge Limited

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Kafila Forge Limited

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 20, 2003

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/33150

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/33150
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, a T V.K.
Decided On: Nov 20, 2003
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Kafila Forge Limited

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(167)ELT343TriDel

Excerpt

2. the revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeals passed by the commissioner (appeals) whereby the commissioner (appeals) held that the transmission shafts and its parts manufactured by the respondents were classifiable under heading 84.83 of the central excise tariff.3. the contention of the revenue is that the transmission shafts manufactured by the respondents specially designed for use in the motor vehicle of chapter 87 of the tariff. therefore are to be classified under heading as parts of vehicles. we find that this issue is settled by the decision of the tribunal in the case of bharat fritz werner (p) ltd. vs. cce, bangalore, 1998 (102) elt 732 and in the case of servall engineering works vs. cce, coimbatore vs. venkatachalapathy industries, 1999 (106) elt 176. in these cases, crank shafts, tappet shafts, gear wheels, pulleys and picking shafts are to be classifiable under heading 84.83 of the central excise tariff being specifically covered therein and not as parts of accessories of the machines. in view of the above decisions of the tribunal, we find no infirmity in the impugned order.the appeal filed by the revenue is rejected.

Full Judgment

2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeals passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the transmission shafts and its parts manufactured by the respondents were classifiable under heading 84.83 of the Central Excise Tariff.

3. The contention of the revenue is that the transmission shafts manufactured by the respondents specially designed for use in the motor vehicle of Chapter 87 of the Tariff. Therefore are to be classified under heading as parts of vehicles. We find that this issue is settled by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore, 1998 (102) ELT 732 and in the case of Servall Engineering Works Vs. CCE, Coimbatore Vs. Venkatachalapathy Industries, 1999 (106) ELT 176. In these cases, crank shafts, tappet shafts, gear wheels, pulleys and picking shafts are to be classifiable under heading 84.83 of the Central Excise Tariff being specifically covered therein and not as parts of accessories of the machines. In view of the above decisions of the Tribunal, we find no infirmity in the impugned order.

The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

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