Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

indus Engineering Company Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

indus Engineering Company vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Feb 13, 2004
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/34151

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
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

indus Engineering Company

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(2004)(175)ELT322Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. after hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of rs. 3,34,138/- being the duty confirmed by including excess freight collected by the appellants herein during the period 1997-98 in the assessable value of goods manufactured and cleared by them, and penalty of rs. 1 lakh imposed upon them, we found that it was possible to decide the appeal itself at this stage; hence after waiving pre-deposit, we proceed to hear and dispose of the appeal itself, with the consent of both sides.2. we find that the issue stands settled in favour of the assessees by the apex court's decision in the case of baroda electric meters ltd. vs. cce 1994 (94) elt 13 (sc) in which the apex court has relied upon its earlier order in the case of indian oxygen ltd. vs. cce 1988 (36) elt 723 (sc) holding that duty of excise is a tax on manufacturer and not upon the profits incurred by a dealer on transportation. learned dr seeks to distinguish this decision on the ground that it relied to equalise freight; however we find that in other decisions of the tribunal, one of them being in the case of anjaleem enterprises pvt.ltd. vs. cce 2001 (137) elt 1190, where it was not a case of equalised freight; the tribunal has applied the ratio of the supreme court's decision in the case of baroada electric meters ltd. and held that excess freight is not required to be included in the assessable value of goods manufactured.3. following the ratio of the above orders, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 3,34,138/- being the duty confirmed by including excess freight collected by the appellants herein during the period 1997-98 in the assessable value of goods manufactured and cleared by them, and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed upon them, we found that it was possible to decide the appeal itself at this stage; hence after waiving pre-deposit, we proceed to hear and dispose of the appeal itself, with the consent of both sides.

2. We find that the issue stands settled in favour of the assessees by the Apex Court's decision in the case of Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. vs. CCE 1994 (94) ELT 13 (SC) in which the Apex Court has relied upon its earlier order in the case of Indian Oxygen Ltd. vs. CCE 1988 (36) ELT 723 (SC) holding that duty of excise is a tax on manufacturer and not upon the profits incurred by a dealer on transportation. Learned DR seeks to distinguish this decision on the ground that it relied to equalise freight; however we find that in other decisions of the Tribunal, one of them being in the case of Anjaleem Enterprises Pvt.

Ltd. vs. CCE 2001 (137) ELT 1190, where it was not a case of equalised freight; the Tribunal has applied the ratio of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Baroada Electric meters Ltd. and held that excess freight is not required to be included in the assessable value of goods manufactured.

3. Following the ratio of the above orders, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial