Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shri Ram Industries

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Shri Ram Industries

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Sep 06, 2006

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/43606

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/43606
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice-
Decided On: Sep 06, 2006
Subject: Customs

Case Summary

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

Customs

Key legal issue: Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Shri Ram Industries

Excerpt

.....were assembling machines with the brand name of others.4. the contention of the revenue is that from the evidence on record shows that the appellants were assemble and cleared certain photocopier machine by assembling parts imported from them. the respondent's contention is that at the time of visit by the revenue officer, there was no complete machine in the premises. it is also pointed out that appellant made import of photocopier machines in skd condition which are already bearing the name of the manufacturer. the contention is that the photocopier machines were imported in skd condition and those were only repaired in their premises, therefore the goods found in the premises are not liable for confiscation.5. in this case, the commissioner gave a finding of fact that at the time of importation of these photocopiers were in ckd condition and their components already bearing the trade mark/brand name of the original manufacturers abroad. such photocopier imported in ckd condition as well as their parts and components suffered customs duty and those were duly repaired at the respondent's premises. in the present appeal this finding of fact is not controverted by the revenue.the revenue is only going by the statement of the partner to submit that the appellant had already the complete machines were the brand name of others but revenue is not demanding duty in respect of the machines already cleared in the present proceedings. as the foods have been in the premises are only in form of some semi-finished machines and finding of the commissioner is that the photocopiers were imported in ckd condition on payment of appropriate duty. in these circumstances, i find no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.

Full Judgment

2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby confiscation of semi-finished photocopier machine was set aside.

3. The case of the Revenue is that the respondent made import of parts of photocopier machine and were cleared with the brand name of cannon etc. The Revenue is not asking for duty on the goods and photocopier machine already cleared in the present proceedings. The Revenue only confiscated the semifinished goods on the ground that respondents were assembling machines with the brand name of others.

4. The contention of the Revenue is that from the evidence on record shows that the appellants were assemble and cleared certain photocopier machine by assembling parts imported from them. The respondent's contention is that at the time of visit by the Revenue officer, there was no complete machine in the premises. It is also pointed out that appellant made import of photocopier machines in SKD condition which are already bearing the name of the manufacturer. The contention is that the photocopier machines were imported in SKD condition and those were only repaired in their premises, therefore the goods found in the premises are not liable for confiscation.

5. In this case, the Commissioner gave a finding of fact that at the time of importation of these photocopiers were in CKD condition and their components already bearing the trade mark/brand name of the original manufacturers abroad. Such photocopier imported in CKD condition as well as their parts and components suffered customs duty and those were duly repaired at the respondent's premises. In the present appeal this finding of fact is not controverted by the Revenue.

The Revenue is only going by the statement of the partner to submit that the appellant had already the complete machines were the brand name of others but Revenue is not demanding duty in respect of the machines already cleared in the present proceedings. As the foods have been in the premises are only in form of some semi-finished machines and finding of the Commissioner is that the photocopiers were imported in CKD condition on payment of appropriate duty. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Shri Ram Industries Same Subject Customs Same Judge S Kang, Vice-