Commercial Engineers and Body Vs. Cc and Ce

Commercial Engineers and Body vs Cc and Ce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Oct 04, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/36682

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/36682
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: J Balasundaram, Vice, A T V.K.
Decided On: Oct 04, 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

Commercial Engineers and Body

Respondent

Cc and Ce

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(117)LC288Tri(Delhi)

Excerpt

.....january 2001 and penalty of equal amount has been imposed on the appellants herein. demand arose as a result of denial of the benefit of exemption under notification 67/95-ce to the parts on the ground that they were captivity consumed in the manufacture of special purpose motor vehicles, that is, light recovery vehicles falling for classification under chapter heading 87.05 which are exemption from the whole of the duty of excise under notification no.4/97 dated 1.3.1997, 5/98 dated 2.6.1998 and 6/2000 dated 1.3.2000.2. we have heard both sides. the first contention of the appellants is that majority of the demand is barred by limitation as almost the entire period of demand is beyond the normal period of limitation and the appellants had shown in their classification declaration that they were manufacturing parts and accessories of motor vehicles. the further submission on this point is that the appellants cannot be held guilty of any suppression as the classification declaration itself has been relied upon for invoking the extended period of limitation. we see no merit in this plea for the reason that parts and accessories of light recovery vehicles (such as platform, side cover, search light support etc.) were no where shown in the classification declaration and further for the reason that it came to the knowledge of the department that such parts are being manufactured and cleared for captive consumption only from the statements of shri hirdesh singh thakur, asst. manager, design & development (production department) and shri gautam bhattacharya, authorized signatory of the appellants when the statements were recorded in 1999 and 2001. we therefore hold that the demand is not barred by limitation.3. there is also no merit in the plea of the appellants that the parts in question are not excisable as they are not marketable. there is a clear finding by the additional commissioner whose order has been upheld by the commissioner (appeals) that parts in.....

Full Judgment

1. Demand of duty of Rs. 4,97,623/- has been confirmed on parts of Light Recovery Vehicles falling under Chapter Heading 87.08 manufactured and cleared for captive consumption during the period January 1997 to January 2001 and penalty of equal amount has been imposed on the appellants herein. Demand arose as a result of denial of the benefit of exemption under Notification 67/95-CE to the parts on the ground that they were captivity consumed in the manufacture of special purpose motor vehicles, that is, Light Recovery Vehicles falling for classification under Chapter Heading 87.05 which are exemption from the whole of the duty of excise under Notification No.4/97 dated 1.3.1997, 5/98 dated 2.6.1998 and 6/2000 dated 1.3.2000.

2. We have heard both sides. The first contention of the appellants is that majority of the demand is barred by limitation as almost the entire period of demand is beyond the normal period of limitation and the appellants had shown in their classification declaration that they were manufacturing parts and accessories of motor vehicles. The further submission on this point is that the appellants cannot be held guilty of any suppression as the classification declaration itself has been relied upon for invoking the extended period of limitation. We see no merit in this plea for the reason that parts and accessories of Light Recovery Vehicles (such as platform, side cover, search light support etc.) were no where shown in the classification declaration and further for the reason that it came to the knowledge of the Department that such parts are being manufactured and cleared for captive consumption only from the statements of Shri Hirdesh Singh Thakur, Asst. Manager, Design & Development (Production Department) and Shri Gautam Bhattacharya, Authorized Signatory of the appellants when the statements were recorded in 1999 and 2001. We therefore hold that the demand is not barred by limitation.

3. There is also no merit in the plea of the appellants that the parts in question are not excisable as they are not marketable. There is a clear finding by the Additional Commissioner whose order has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) that parts in question are clearly identifiable and can also be brought to the market for being bought and sold. This findings is not controverted satisfactorily by the appellant before us. Since parts which are excisable godos falling under Chapter Heading 87.08 are used in the manufacture of special purpose motor vehicles which are exempt form payment of duty, the benefit if exemption under Notification 67/95 dated 16.3.1995 has rightly been disallowed to the appellants.

4. In the light of the above, we hold that the duty demand and penalty are sustainable. However, we reduce the penalty to Rs. 50,000/- having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commercial Engineers and Body vs Cc and Ce Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge J Balasundaram, Vice, A T V.K.