Home Care Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Home Care vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 16, 2005

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/38133

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/38133
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice-, M T K.C.
Decided On: Feb 16, 2005
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

Home Care

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(184)ELT382TriDel

Excerpt

2. the appellants filed these appeals against the orders-in-appeals passed by the commissioner (appeals). in this case, the benefit of notification no. 65/87-c.e., was denied to the appellants on the ground that made-up textile articles are manufactured with the aid of power.in this case, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of made-up textile articles and claiming the benefit of notification no.65/87-c.e. the notification provides nil rate of duty to the made-up textile articles classifiable under tariff heading no. 6301.00, if these are made without the aid power.3. the contention of appellants is that they are mixing chemicals which are used as dyes with the help of mixture. the contention is that the process of mixing-up of printing paste does not amount to manufacture in view of the decision of the hon'ble bombay high court in the case of phoenix mills ltd. v. union of india reported in [2004 (168) e.l.t.310]. the contention of the appellants is that as mixing-up of printing paste does not amount to manufacture, where the power is used hence it cannot be said that power is used in the manufacture of made-up articles.4. the contention of the revenue is that the power is used in stitching or ironing of made-up articles. the revenue relied upon the statement of shri c.s. kapoor, manager, who was looking after the day-to-day affairs of the appellants firm.5. we find that the notification no. 65/87-c.e., provides nil rate of duty in respect of the made-up articles if made without the aid of power. in this case, the power is being used in mixing-up the dyes as well as ironing and stitching. therefore, we find that the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of this notification as made-up articles are made with the aid of power.6. at this stage, the appellants also claimed the benefit of notification no. 175/86-c.e. on the ground that their clearances are well within the scope of small scale exemption. on a specific query from the bench, it is admitted.....

Full Judgment

2. The appellants filed these appeals against the orders-in-appeals passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case, the benefit of Notification No. 65/87-C.E., was denied to the appellants on the ground that made-up textile articles are manufactured with the aid of power.

In this case, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of made-up textile articles and claiming the benefit of Notification No.65/87-C.E. The Notification provides nil rate of duty to the made-up textile articles classifiable under Tariff Heading No. 6301.00, if these are made without the aid power.

3. The contention of appellants is that they are mixing chemicals which are used as dyes with the help of mixture. The contention is that the process of mixing-up of printing paste does not amount to manufacture in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Phoenix Mills Ltd. v. Union of India reported in [2004 (168) E.L.T.310]. The contention of the appellants is that as mixing-up of printing paste does not amount to manufacture, where the power is used hence it cannot be said that power is used in the manufacture of made-up articles.

4. The contention of the Revenue is that the power is used in stitching or ironing of made-up articles. The Revenue relied upon the statement of Shri C.S. Kapoor, Manager, who was looking after the day-to-day affairs of the appellants firm.

5. We find that the Notification No. 65/87-C.E., provides nil rate of duty in respect of the made-up articles if made without the aid of power. In this case, the power is being used in mixing-up the dyes as well as ironing and stitching. Therefore, we find that the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of this notification as made-up articles are made with the aid of power.

6. At this stage, the appellants also claimed the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. on the ground that their clearances are well within the scope of small scale exemption. On a specific query from the Bench, it is admitted by the appellants, they have not been registered with the Director of Industries or with the Development Commissioner as a small scale industry under the provisions of Industries (Development and Regulation) Act. As per the provisions of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., only the manufacturing units, which are registered with the Director of Industries or with the Development Commissioner, under the provisions of Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, are entitled for the benefit of small scale exemption.

In these circumstances, we find no merit in the contention of the appellants.

7. In this case, penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh is imposed on the Proprietor.

Taking into facts and circumstances of the case and the issue involved in this case, we reduce penalty to Rs. 50,000/-. The appeals are disposed of as indicated above.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Home Care vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S Kang, Vice-, M T K.C.