Cce Vs. Jai Sinter Polycon (P) Ltd.

Cce vs Jai Sinter Polycon (P) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Sep 06, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/36454

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/36454
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice, A T V.K.
Decided On: Sep 06, 2004
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

Cce

Respondent

Jai Sinter Polycon (P) Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(99)ECC471

Excerpt

1. revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 3.12.2003 passed by the commissioner (appeals). in the impugned order, the commissioner (appeals) held that the powder manufacture by the respondents from the granules is not marketable and hence is not liable for central excise duty.2. the contention of the revenue is that commissioner (appeals) ignored the fact that same powder is manufactured and sold in the market by the other manufacturer m/s polycon international ltd., therefore, the findings of the commissioner (appeals) that powder in question is not marketable are not sustainable.3. the contention of the respondents is that on 31.1.2003 when officers of the revenue department visited their factory and verified the fact that whether powder manufactured by the appellant is marketable.revenue officers prepared a visit note and in the visit note it was specifically mentioned that the powder manufactured by the respondents was sensitive to lump formation, whereas, powder manufacture by m/s polycon international ltd. is not sensitive to lump formation as both are manufactured by a different manufacturing process, therefore, the finding of the commissioner (appeals) are not perverse.4. we find that commissioner (appeals) in the impugned order after taking note of the visit made by the excise officer gave a finding that powder in question is not marketable and the powder manufactured by m/s polycon international ltd. is manufactured through a different process and is not sensitive to lump formation. the commissioner (appeals) gave a specific finding that on the basis of the verification conduced by the revenue officers that powder in question is sensitive to lump formation is not marketable as such. this fact is not contested by revenue in the present appeal. in these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. the appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 3.12.2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the powder manufacture by the respondents from the granules is not marketable and hence is not liable for central Excise duty.

2. The contention of the Revenue is that Commissioner (Appeals) ignored the fact that same powder is manufactured and sold in the market by the other manufacturer M/s Polycon International Ltd., therefore, the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that powder in question is not marketable are not sustainable.

3. The contention of the respondents is that on 31.1.2003 when officers of the Revenue department visited their factory and verified the fact that whether powder manufactured by the appellant is marketable.

Revenue officers prepared a visit note and in the visit note it was specifically mentioned that the powder manufactured by the respondents was sensitive to lump formation, whereas, powder manufacture by M/s Polycon International Ltd. is not sensitive to lump formation as both are manufactured by a different manufacturing process, therefore, the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) are not perverse.

4. We find that Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order after taking note of the visit made by the Excise Officer gave a finding that powder in question is not marketable and the powder manufactured by M/s Polycon International Ltd. is manufactured through a different process and is not sensitive to lump formation. The Commissioner (Appeals) gave a specific finding that on the basis of the verification conduced by the Revenue officers that powder in question is sensitive to lump formation is not marketable as such. This fact is not contested by Revenue in the present appeal. In these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Cce vs Jai Sinter Polycon (P) Ltd. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S Kang, Vice, A T V.K.