Ghodela Impex Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Ghodela Impex vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Feb 23, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/38227

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/38227
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu
Decided On: Feb 23, 2005
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ghodela Impex

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(184)ELT380Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....finds that to be not permissible support and demanded duties by denying the benefit of notification 8/97 on the grounds that the garments and their material were removed were not fabricated/manufactured from raw material (i.e. printed fabrics) manufacture in india. revenue claimed that since goods were obtained on ct3's from other 100% eou's, as deemed export; as they were not entitled to be considered as manufactured in india and the liability of duty confirmed as proposed. hence this appeal.2. after hearing both sides and on finding that no materials on records exists to establish that the printed fabrics in this case were not manufactured by the 100% eou's as fabrics in india and were imported fabrics or that the printed fabrics were imported as such a place outside india and stored/deposited in the bonded ware houses of the 100% eou's and thereafter shifted on inter bond warehouse movements to the appellants premises. such movements would necessarily have to be under the provisions of customs act, 1962 of duty paid bonded goods.such movements would not be covered by ct3's, nor is their any material shown to that effect. movements were covered in this case on ct3's in question. ct3 profonna itself indicates that this certificate is to be used covers only excisable goods. excisable goods would be such goods which by definition of the levy under the central excise act 1944 would be the goods manufactured or produced in india. when we come to the conclusion that goods in this case (i.e. printed fabrics) are not proved to be manufacture out side india & are goods manufactured in india. we cannot find any reason to deny the benefit of notification 8/97 as arrived at by the orders impugned before us. the reliance placed by the ld (advocate) on the case of favourite industries 2003 (156) elt 802 would support the plea to set aside the order impugned herein based on "deemed export" interpretation. nothing contrary has been shown.2. we find therefore, no reasons to.....

Full Judgment

1. Appellants are an 100% EOU, who received printed fabrics from other 100% EOU's on CT3 certificates and fabricated garments from such printed fabrics. These garments and waste was removed of payment of duty under the provision of notification 8/97 as amended and on payment of duty provided therein. Revenue finds that to be not permissible support and demanded duties by denying the benefit of notification 8/97 on the grounds that the garments and their material were removed were not fabricated/manufactured from Raw material (i.e. printed fabrics) manufacture in India. Revenue claimed that since goods were obtained on CT3's from other 100% EOU's, as deemed export; as they were not entitled to be considered as manufactured in India and the liability of duty confirmed as proposed. Hence this appeal.

2. After hearing both sides and on finding that no materials on records exists to establish that the printed fabrics in this case were not manufactured by the 100% EOU's as fabrics in India and were imported fabrics or that the printed fabrics were imported as such a place outside India and stored/deposited in the Bonded Ware Houses of the 100% EOU's and thereafter shifted on Inter bond warehouse movements to the appellants premises. Such movements would necessarily have to be under the Provisions of Customs Act, 1962 of duty paid Bonded goods.

Such movements would not be covered by CT3's, nor is their any material shown to that effect. Movements were covered in this case on CT3's in question. CT3 profonna itself indicates that this certificate is to be used covers only excisable goods. Excisable goods would be such goods which by definition of the levy under the Central Excise Act 1944 would be the goods manufactured or produced in India. When we come to the conclusion that goods in this case (i.e. printed fabrics) are not proved to be manufacture out side India & are goods manufactured in India. We cannot find any reason to deny the benefit of notification 8/97 as arrived at by the orders impugned before us. The reliance placed by the Ld (Advocate) on the case of Favourite Industries 2003 (156) ELT 802 would support the plea to set aside the order impugned herein based on "deemed export" interpretation. Nothing contrary has been shown.

2. We find therefore, no reasons to uphold the order impugned. The same is required to be set aside and appeal allowed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Ghodela Impex vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Excise Same Judge S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu