Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Sanghi Organisation

Commissioner of Customs and vs Sanghi Organisation

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Oct 20, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/36884

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/36884
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, Vice, A M Moheb
Decided On: Oct 20, 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

Commissioner of Customs and

Respondent

Sanghi Organisation

Excerpt

.....before him on two distinct aspects. he ruled that the show cause notice proposes to add the value of bought out items to acetylene gas generator at the time of removal of the said goods, whereas the order-in-original says "the assessee had manufactured acetylene plant at the site of the customers by assembling the acetylene gas generator along with the bought out items". the commissioner (appeals) holds that the lower authority traversed beyond the show cause notice. he further observes that the bought out items were supplied at the plant directly.on merits he observes that the bought out items were supplied along with the manufactured goods, in which event the value of such bought out items cannot be added to the assessable value of the finished goods. he relies on the case of psi data system ltd. v. cce [1997 (89) pi t 3 (sc)].3. the revenue's grounds in appeal are that the commissioner (appeals) should have remanded the case back to the original authority if he found that such authority traversed beyond the show cause notice while passing the order. the revenue appears to be admitting that the contentions in the show cause notice are different from the one decided in the order of the assistant commissioner.5. the revenue does not argue that the contention of commissioner (appeals) that the show cause notice does not cover the issue decided by the assistant commissioner is wrong. yet the revenue bases its appeal on the very same argument taken by the lower adjudicating authority and wants us to restore his order. thus in the grounds of appeal the revenue contends that the commissioner (appeals) should have remanded the case to the lower authority for a fresh decision, but the relief claimed from us is that the order of the lower authority should be upheld! 6. there does not appear to be any consistency in departments' stand.as the commissioner (appeals) pointed out that the show cause notice started with the assumption that acetylene generator has already.....

Full Judgment

1. This appeal is filed by Revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) Mumbai VII.2. The issue pertains to whether or not value of bought out items should be added to the assessable value of a product, i.e. Acetylene Gas Generator. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (A) dealt with the appeal before him on two distinct aspects. He ruled that the show cause notice proposes to add the value of bought out items to Acetylene Gas Generator at the time of removal of the said goods, whereas the order-in-original says "the assessee had manufactured Acetylene plant at the site of the customers by assembling the Acetylene Gas generator along with the bought out items". The Commissioner (Appeals) holds that the lower authority traversed beyond the show cause notice. He further observes that the bought out items were supplied at the plant directly.

On merits he observes that the bought out items were supplied along with the manufactured goods, in which event the value of such bought out items cannot be added to the assessable value of the finished goods. He relies on the case of PSI Data System Ltd. v. CCE [1997 (89) PI T 3 (SC)].

3. The Revenue's grounds in appeal are that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have remanded the case back to the original authority if he found that such authority traversed beyond the show cause notice while passing the order. The Revenue appears to be admitting that the contentions in the show cause notice are different from the one decided in the order of the Assistant Commissioner.

5. The Revenue does not argue that the contention of Commissioner (Appeals) that the show cause notice does not cover the issue decided by the Assistant Commissioner is wrong. Yet the Revenue bases its appeal on the very same argument taken by the lower adjudicating authority and wants us to restore his order. Thus in the grounds of appeal the Revenue contends that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have remanded the case to the lower authority for a fresh decision, but the relief claimed from us is that the order of the lower authority should be upheld! 6. There does not appear to be any consistency in departments' stand.

As the Commissioner (Appeals) pointed out that the show cause notice started with the assumption that Acetylene generator has already come into existence along with the bought out items in the manufacturers hands, the order proceeds on the basis that it in fact has come into existence only at the site with the bought out items. This inconsistency in the lower authorities order was objected to by Commissioner (A). However we observe that the Commissioner (Appeals) dealt with the case on merits and held that the value of bought out items can not be added to the assessable value of Acetylene generator as such items are supplied at the site where the plant (Acetylene Plant) is erected.

7. The appeal of the Revenue is based on the findings of the lower original authority, which were held to be beyond the allegations made in the show cause notice. The Revenue's appeal seeking to restore that order cannot be accepted. The case law cited by the Ld. SDR (Narve Tulman Manufacturers (P) Ltd.; M/s. Sirpur Paper Mills etc.) are not relevant.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Customs and vs Sanghi Organisation Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge J Balasundaram, Vice, A M Moheb