Collector of C. Ex. Vs. JaIn Marbles

Collector of C. Ex. vs JaIn Marbles

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Oct 06, 1987

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/3863

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/3863
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Oct 06, 1987
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

Collector of C. Ex.

Respondent

JaIn Marbles

Legal References

Reported In: (1989)(42)ELT716TriDel

Excerpt

.....8-4-1983. this appeal is against the said order.2. we have heard smt. saxena for the deptt. and shri gopal prasad, consultant for the respondents.3. the order of the collector (appeals) was on the basis that mere sawing of rough marble blocks into rough marble slabs would not be a process of manufacture and hence no liability for payment of excise duty arose. this finding is disputed in the grounds of appeal. it is further mentioned in the grounds of appeal that this question whether or not sawing of marble blocks into marble slabs amounts to manufacture was not the subject matter of the assistant collector's order and hence the finding of the collector (appeals) on this issue was without jurisdiction.4. so far as the question whether the collector (appeals) exceeded his jurisdiction in considering the liability for payment of excise duty is concerned, smt. saxena repeats the ground as above mentioned. but it should be noted that if there is no liability at all for payment of excise duty the question of applicability of exemption notification would not even arise. hence when, before the collector (appeals), the respondents had raised this issue of excisability he had a duty to go into the same and he cannot be said to have exceeded his jurisdiction in taking up this issue for consideration though the same may not have been raised before the assistant collector.5. as far as the liability for payment of excise duty by reason of sawing of marble blocks into marble slabs the issue is settled under the decision of this tribunal in the case of collector of central excise, jaipur v. fine marbles and minerals (p) ltd. reported in 1985 (22) e.l.t. 128 (tribunal). the said decision was upheld by the supreme court when it dismissed appeal no. 2611 of 1985 under its order dated 12-2-1986.6. in the above circumstances we hold that the order of the collector (appeals) was perfectly proper. this appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. Under order dated 19-11-1982 the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ajmer denied to the respondents M/s. Jam Marbles benefit of exemption under Notification No. 105/80 dt. 19-6-1980 and held them liable to pay central excise duty from 1-4-1981 on the full value of the goods. An appeal against the same was allowed by the Collector (Appeals) under his order dt. 8-4-1983. This appeal is against the said order.

2. We have heard Smt. Saxena for the Deptt. and Shri Gopal Prasad, Consultant for the respondents.

3. The order of the Collector (Appeals) was on the basis that mere sawing of rough marble blocks into rough marble slabs would not be a process of manufacture and hence no liability for payment of excise duty arose. This finding is disputed in the grounds of appeal. It is further mentioned in the grounds of appeal that this question whether or not sawing of marble blocks into marble slabs amounts to manufacture was not the subject matter of the Assistant Collector's order and hence the finding of the Collector (Appeals) on this issue was without jurisdiction.

4. So far as the question whether the Collector (Appeals) exceeded his jurisdiction in considering the liability for payment of excise duty is concerned, Smt. Saxena repeats the ground as above mentioned. But it should be noted that if there is no liability at all for payment of excise duty the question of applicability of exemption notification would not even arise. Hence when, before the Collector (Appeals), the respondents had raised this issue of excisability he had a duty to go into the same and he cannot be said to have exceeded his jurisdiction in taking up this issue for consideration though the same may not have been raised before the Assistant Collector.

5. As far as the liability for payment of excise duty by reason of sawing of marble blocks into marble slabs the issue is settled under the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Fine Marbles and Minerals (P) Ltd. reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 128 (Tribunal). The said decision was upheld by the Supreme Court when it dismissed Appeal No. 2611 of 1985 under its order dated 12-2-1986.

6. In the above circumstances we hold that the order of the Collector (Appeals) was perfectly proper. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Collector of C. Ex. vs JaIn Marbles Same Subject Land Acquisition