Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sangam Spinners Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Sangam Spinners Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jan 03, 2005
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/37605

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Subject
MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Sangam Spinners Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(2005)(183)ELT176TriDel

Excerpt

1. in this appeal, the revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the commissioner (appeals) had dropped the duty demand against the respondents in respect of the burnt copper wire scrap which they cleared during the period july, 1999 to october, 1999 without payment of duty. the adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand of rs. 12,851/- with interest and equal amount of penalty against them but the commissioner (appeals) has reversed the order on the ground that waste and scrap so cleared by the respondents did not stand classified under any tariff heading and also did not satisfy the other conditions detailed under rule 57-s(2)(c).2. none has come present on behalf of the respondents. no request for adjournment has been received from them. therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned jdr.3. we have gone through the record and impugned order. we find that waste and scrap cleared by the respondents during the period in dispute was of burnt copper wire. such a scrap does not find any classification under any tariff heading. it also could not be said to be the result of process of manufacture. therefore, the conditions laid down under rule 57-s(2)(c) for charging duty on such a waste and scrap do not stand satisfied. the view taken by the learned commissioner (appeals) is therefore, perfectly valid and legal. we do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the same. therefore, the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals) is upheld. the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had dropped the duty demand against the respondents in respect of the burnt copper wire scrap which they cleared during the period July, 1999 to October, 1999 without payment of duty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 12,851/- with interest and equal amount of penalty against them but the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the Order on the ground that waste and scrap so cleared by the respondents did not stand classified under any tariff heading and also did not satisfy the other conditions detailed under Rule 57-S(2)(c).

2. None has come present on behalf of the respondents. No request for adjournment has been received from them. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned JDR.3. We have gone through the record and impugned order. We find that waste and scrap cleared by the respondents during the period in dispute was of burnt copper wire. Such a scrap does not find any classification under any tariff heading. It also could not be said to be the result of process of manufacture. Therefore, the conditions laid down under Rule 57-S(2)(c) for charging duty on such a waste and scrap do not stand satisfied. The view taken by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is therefore, perfectly valid and legal. We do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the same. Therefore, the impugned Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial