Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs. Trinity Engineering

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry vs Trinity Engineering

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai Decided Dec 21, 2010

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/944026

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/944026
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Judge: The Honourable Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President &Amp; the Honourable Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member
Decided On: Dec 21, 2010
Case Number: Appeal No.E/81/2004 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.513/2003 (P) dated 10.10.2003 passed by
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

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

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry

Advocate Shri T.H.Rao, SDR. Shri M.Kannan, Advocate.

Respondent

Trinity Engineering

Excerpt

per jyoti balasundaram in this case, the asst. commissioner of central excise confirmed a demand of rs.13,047/- on oil separator, agitator, blower, accumulator, can dump and can trap holding that they were parts and components and therefore were excluded from the coverage of exemption notification no.1/93-ce dt. 28.2.93 (ssi benefit notification). the commissioner (appeals) set aside the demand and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority; hence this appeal by the revenue. 2. on hearing both sides, we find that by an order no.10/95 dt. 19.7.95, the deputy commissioner had classified the items in dispute under cet sub-heading 8479.10 and held that they were not parts/components of refrigeration/cold storage machinery and that they have individual functions which are not similar to that of the machinery under reference. this order was not taken up in appeal by the revenue and therefore the finding that the goods in question were neither parts nor components of refrigeration/cold storage machinery has become final. this being so, the commissioner (appeals) has rightly held that the goods are liable to ssi exemption as the very same items were the subject matter of order of july 1995 which was not challenged. we, therefore, uphold the impugned order extending the benefit under the ssi notification, and reject the appeal.

Full Judgment

Per Jyoti Balasundaram

In this case, the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed a demand of Rs.13,047/- on oil separator, agitator, blower, accumulator, can dump and can trap holding that they were parts and components and therefore were excluded from the coverage of Exemption Notification No.1/93-CE dt. 28.2.93 (SSI benefit notification). The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority; hence this appeal by the Revenue.

2. On hearing both sides, we find that by an order No.10/95 dt. 19.7.95, the Deputy Commissioner had classified the items in dispute under CET sub-heading 8479.10 and held that they were not parts/components of refrigeration/cold storage machinery and that they have individual functions which are not similar to that of the machinery under reference. This order was not taken up in appeal by the Revenue and therefore the finding that the goods in question were neither parts nor components of refrigeration/cold storage machinery has become final. This being so, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that the goods are liable to SSI exemption as the very same items were the subject matter of order of July 1995 which was not challenged. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order extending the benefit under the SSI notification, and reject the appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chen... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry vs Trinity Engine... Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge The Honourable Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President &Amp; t...