Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Lohia Starlinger Limited

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Lohia Starlinger Limited

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 13, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/34146

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/34146
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, a T V.K.
Decided On: Feb 13, 2004
Subject: FERA

Case Summary

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

FERA

Key legal issue: FERA

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Lohia Starlinger Limited

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(179)ELT92TriDel

Excerpt

1. the revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals).2. the brief facts of the case are that the respondents made export of two machines, namely, tape extrusion line model e-90b with 180 precison cross winders and circular weaving machine lsl 4 (spl) and claimed the benefit under depb scheme. a scn was issued to the respondents on the ground that in fact a tabular fabric manufacturing plant was exported by the respondent and this plant is not entitled for draw back under the depb scheme.3. the commissioner (appeals) in the impugned order after considering the evidence on record and after taking into consideration the contract between the respondents and their customers held that both the machines arc different and distinct in nature and are classifiable under different chapter headings, therefore, it is not complete tabular fabric manufacturing plant. the contention of the revenue is that it is complete tabular fabric manufacturing plant and composite contract was entered into between the respondents and their customer specifying the composite price.4. the respondents produced a copy of the contract and as per the contract, we find that in the clause price schedule the price of two different machines was mentioned. the respondents also submitted that these are two different stream of machines to undertake two different independent processes which may be or may not be related. the plastic extrusion machinery has no connective with the circular weaving machine.5. these arguments were raised before the commissioner (appeals) and accepted by the commissioner (appeals). the revenue had not produced any evidence to controvert these findings in the present appeal.therefore, we find no infirmity in the impugned order hence the appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents made export of two machines, namely, Tape Extrusion Line Model E-90B with 180 Precison Cross Winders and Circular Weaving Machine LSL 4 (SPL) and claimed the benefit under DEPB Scheme. A SCN was issued to the respondents on the ground that in fact a Tabular fabric manufacturing plant was exported by the respondent and this plant is not entitled for draw back under the DEPB Scheme.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order after considering the evidence on record and after taking into consideration the contract between the respondents and their customers held that both the machines arc different and distinct in nature and are classifiable under different chapter headings, therefore, it is not complete tabular fabric manufacturing plant. The contention of the Revenue is that it is complete tabular fabric manufacturing plant and composite contract was entered into between the respondents and their customer specifying the composite price.

4. The respondents produced a copy of the contract and as per the contract, we find that in the clause price schedule the price of two different machines was mentioned. The respondents also submitted that these are two different stream of machines to undertake two different independent processes which may be or may not be related. The plastic extrusion machinery has no connective with the circular weaving machine.

5. These arguments were raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) and accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue had not produced any evidence to controvert these findings in the present appeal.

Therefore, we find no infirmity in the impugned order hence the appeal is dismissed.

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