indocom Projects Equipments Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

indocom Projects Equipments Ltd. vs Commr. of C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 11, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/37085

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/37085
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: A Wadhwa, A T V.K.
Decided On: Nov 11, 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

indocom Projects Equipments Ltd.

Respondent

Commr. of C. Ex.

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(185)ELT291TriDel

Excerpt

.....appeal filed by m/s. indocom projects equipments ltd., the issue involved is whether benefit of notification no. 5/98-c.e., is available to the goods manufactured by them.2. shri naveen mullick, learned advocate, submitted that the appellants manufactured various types of machines falling under chapter 84 and structures for tanks of iron and steel falling under chapter 73 of the schedule to the central excise tariff act; that they had classified bulk mix delivery system under heading no. 8479.10 whereas the department has classified it under heading 87.05 of the tariff and confirmed the demand of duty besides imposing penalty. learned advocate, further, submitted that the appellants are not challenging the classification of bulk mix delivery system under heading no. 87.05; that the benefit of notification can be claimed at any stage and it cannot be denied merely because they had earlier classified their product under chapter 84. finally, he submitted that this being an issue relating to classification of product, no penalty is imposable.we also heard shri d.n. choudhary, learned senior departmental representative who reiterated the finding as contained in order-in original and order-in-appeal.3. we have considered the submissions of both the sides. as the appellants are not contesting the classification of bulk mix delivery system under heading no. 87.05 of the central excise tariff, we uphold the same. we agree with the contention of the learned advocate that the issue being classification of the product, no penalty is imposable on them. we, therefore, set aside the penalty imposed on the appellants.we also agree with the submissions of the learned advocate that the department has to examine whether the goods in question are eligible for the benefit of notification no. 5/98-c.e., dated 2-6-98. as the eligibility of impugned product under said notification has not been examined by the lower authorities, we remand the matter to the jurisdictional adjudicating.....

Full Judgment

1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. Indocom Projects Equipments Ltd., the issue involved is whether benefit of Notification No. 5/98-C.E., is available to the goods manufactured by them.

2. Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufactured various types of machines falling under Chapter 84 and structures for tanks of iron and steel falling under Chapter 73 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that they had classified Bulk Mix Delivery System under Heading No. 8479.10 whereas the Department has classified it under Heading 87.05 of the Tariff and confirmed the demand of duty besides imposing penalty. Learned Advocate, further, submitted that the appellants are not challenging the classification of Bulk Mix Delivery System under Heading No. 87.05; that the benefit of Notification can be claimed at any stage and it cannot be denied merely because they had earlier classified their product under Chapter 84. Finally, he submitted that this being an issue relating to classification of product, no penalty is imposable.

We also heard Shri D.N. Choudhary, learned Senior Departmental Representative who reiterated the finding as contained in order-in original and order-in-appeal.

3. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. As the Appellants are not contesting the classification of Bulk Mix Delivery System under Heading No. 87.05 of the Central Excise Tariff, we uphold the same. We agree with the contention of the learned Advocate that the issue being classification of the product, no penalty is imposable on them. We, therefore, set aside the penalty imposed on the Appellants.

We also agree with the submissions of the learned Advocate that the Department has to examine whether the goods in question are eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 5/98-C.E., dated 2-6-98. As the eligibility of impugned product under said Notification has not been examined by the lower authorities, we remand the matter to the jurisdictional Adjudicating Authority with the direction to examine whether the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 5/98 is available to the impugned product after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants. The Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties indocom Projects Equipments Ltd. vs Commr. of C. Ex. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge A Wadhwa, A T V.K.