Nahan Foundry Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Nahan Foundry Ltd. vs Collector of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jun 14, 1994

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/7592

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/7592
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Jun 14, 1994
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

Nahan Foundry Ltd.

Respondent

Collector of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (1994)(73)ELT58TriDel

Excerpt

.....the lower appellate authority that as wheel barrows are used to transport all kinds of goods, they cannot be held to be in the nature of agricultural implements as their basic nature is not that of agricultural implements. accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the finding that wheel barrows are not entitled to the benefit of notification 55/75. however, the demand is to be confirmed to a period of six months prior to the issue of the show cause notice as the appellants have admittedly filed classification lists describing the item and claiming the benefit of notification 55/75 which have been approved by the department, and therefore, the extended period of limitation is not available to the department. since the classification lists have been approved, the relevant rate to be applied is the rate of duty as prevailing on the date of clearance in terms of rule 9a(1)(ii) of the central excise rules, 1944. (i) wheel barrows are not agricultural implements entitled to the benefit of notification 55/75. (ii) the demand of duty is confined to the period from june, 1981 onwards (as show cause notices have been issued on 2-1-1982 for the period from 1-4-1978 to 26-9-1981 and the show cause notice for the subsequent period has been issued on 4-6-1983) (iii) the rate of duty to be applied is the rate in force at the time of clearance of the goods.

Full Judgment

1. All the above appeals arise out of a common order dated 13-3-1985 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi and are hence taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common order. The issues for determination herein are : 1. Whether Wheel Barrow (Manually operated) is an agricultural implement entitled to the benefit of exemption from duty in terms of Notification 55/75-C.E. at Sl. No. 11 thereto; 2. Whether the rate as prevailing on the date of clearance or on the date of actual payment of duty, would be applicable.

2. We have heard the ld. Advocate Shri G.S. Bhangoo and Shri K.K.Dutta, ld. DR.3. According to Webster Dictionary, a Wheel Barrow is a "barrow or shallow open box mounted between two shafts that receive the axle of a wheel at the front ends, the rear ends being shaped into handles and having legs on which it rests, also, a similar controvance with more than one wheel." An implement has been defined as "the apparatus, instruments, etc. employed in any trade or in executing any piece of work.

4. Wheel Barrows are capable of being put to multifarious use for carrying out types of loads etc. and therefore, cannot be considered as agricultural implements. We find that the benefit of notification has been extended in the cases of sales to agricultural organisations and the demand for the period 1-4-1978 to 26-9-1989 and subsequently for the period from 27-9-1981 to 31-3-1982 has been confirmed only in respect of wheel barrows sold to other organisations such as PWD. We agree with the finding of the lower appellate authority that as wheel barrows are used to transport all kinds of goods, they cannot be held to be in the nature of agricultural implements as their basic nature is not that of agricultural implements. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the finding that wheel barrows are not entitled to the benefit of Notification 55/75. However, the demand is to be confirmed to a period of six months prior to the issue of the show cause notice as the appellants have admittedly filed classification lists describing the item and claiming the benefit of Notification 55/75 which have been approved by the department, and therefore, the extended period of limitation is not available to the department. Since the classification lists have been approved, the relevant rate to be applied is the rate of duty as prevailing on the date of clearance in terms of Rule 9A(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

(i) Wheel Barrows are not agricultural implements entitled to the benefit of Notification 55/75.

(ii) The demand of duty is confined to the period from June, 1981 onwards (as show cause notices have been issued on 2-1-1982 for the period from 1-4-1978 to 26-9-1981 and the show cause notice for the subsequent period has been issued on 4-6-1983) (iii) The rate of duty to be applied is the rate in force at the time of clearance of the goods.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Nahan Foundry Ltd. vs Collector of Central Excise Same Subject Land Acquisition