Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Emson Gears Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Emson Gears Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 29, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/37549

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/37549
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice-, A T V.K.
Decided On: Dec 29, 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 Central Excise

Respondent

Emson Gears Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(188)ELT34TriDel

Excerpt

2. revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals). the only contention of the revenue is that respondents were not entitled to the benefit of small scale exemption notification in respect of the goods manufactured by them, as the goods cleared by the respondents were not actually branded at all. therefore, the value of such goods was not eligible for exclusion while computing the value of total clearances of the respondents.3. the respondents bought to our notice that tribunal in their own case vide final order no. 801-802/2004-b dated 29-9-2004 [2004 (177) e.l.t.1001 (tri.)] held that respondents had proved fact that respondents were clearing the goods with the logos along with specific part number on the demand of their customers. therefore, appellants were clearing the branded goods.4. we find that in the present case, the only contention of the revenue is that respondents were not clearing branded goods. the commissioner (appeals) held that the goods in question were cleared with the logo with branded name of their customers and the value of the clearance on such goods is to be included while computing the aggregate value of clearances. the revenue had not produced any evidence to show that goods were cleared without any branded name. therefore, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. the appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The only contention of the Revenue is that respondents were not entitled to the benefit of Small Scale Exemption Notification in respect of the goods manufactured by them, as the goods cleared by the respondents were not actually branded at all. Therefore, the value of such goods was not eligible for exclusion while computing the value of total clearances of the respondents.

3. The respondents bought to our notice that Tribunal in their own case vide Final order No. 801-802/2004-B dated 29-9-2004 [2004 (177) E.L.T.1001 (Tri.)] held that respondents had proved fact that respondents were clearing the goods with the logos along with specific part number on the demand of their customers. Therefore, appellants were clearing the branded goods.

4. We find that in the present case, the only contention of the Revenue is that respondents were not clearing branded goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the goods in question were cleared with the logo with branded name of their customers and the value of the clearance on such goods is to be included while computing the aggregate value of clearances. The Revenue had not produced any evidence to show that goods were cleared without any branded name. Therefore, 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 Commissioner of Central Excise vs Emson Gears Ltd. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S Kang, Vice-, A T V.K.