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. Sky Oxygen Co. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Sky Oxygen Co. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Aug 09, 2005
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39946

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 Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Sky Oxygen Co. Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(2005)(189)ELT237Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the commissioner (appeals), vide his impugned order has allowed the appeal on the ground that the appellants are receiving oxygen gas through pipeline and filling the said oxygen gas into cylinders. the activity undertaken by the appellants does not amount to manufacture within the meaning of section 2(f) of central excise act, 1944 with effect from 23-7-96, as oxygen gas remains oxygen gas without change in chemical composition.2. the revenue in their memo of appeal has contended that inasmuch as oxygen gas has been re-packed in the unit container and sold in the market under the name as 'oxygen gas' in cylinders, the same is commercially known as different product from oxygen in liquid form and the process undertaken is essentially to make the gas marketable and as such, duty should be charged on the same.3. after hearing both sides, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the commissioner (appeals). we have been informed by the ld. advocate appearing for the respondents that the oxygen gas, which travels to the respondent's premises through pipeline for the purpose of packing has already discharged the duty burden on the same. mere filling of oxygen gas in the cylinders cannot be said to be resulting in a different excisable commodity so as to levy duty of excise on the same for the second time. as such, we do not find any merit in the revenue's appeal and reject the same.

Full Judgment

1. The Commissioner (Appeals), vide his impugned order has allowed the appeal on the ground that the appellants are receiving oxygen gas through pipeline and filling the said oxygen gas into cylinders. The activity undertaken by the appellants does not amount to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 with effect from 23-7-96, as oxygen gas remains oxygen gas without change in chemical composition.

2. The Revenue in their memo of appeal has contended that inasmuch as oxygen gas has been re-packed in the unit container and sold in the market under the name as 'oxygen gas' in cylinders, the same is commercially known as different product from oxygen in liquid form and the process undertaken is essentially to make the gas marketable and as such, duty should be charged on the same.

3. After hearing both sides, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). We have been informed by the ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents that the oxygen gas, which travels to the respondent's premises through pipeline for the purpose of packing has already discharged the duty burden on the same. Mere filling of oxygen gas in the cylinders cannot be said to be resulting in a different excisable commodity so as to levy duty of excise on the same for the second time. As such, we do not find any merit in the Revenue's appeal and reject the same.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial