Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs. Numeric Power Systems Ltd

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry vs Numeric Power Systems Ltd

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai Decided Sep 08, 2010

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/944215

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/944215
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: Sep 08, 2010
Case Number: Appeal No.E/711 of 2003
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

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry

Advocate Shri C. Dhanasekaran, SDR. Ms. Uma Maheshwari, Advocate.

Respondent

Numeric Power Systems Ltd

Excerpt

per jyoti balasundaram 1. the issue in dispute in the present appeal of the revenue is whether upss is covered under clause (a) of sl.no.1 of the table appended to notification no.10/97-ce dt. 1.3.97. 2. on hearing both sides, we find that this issue had come up for consideration before the tribunal in the appeals filed by the same assessees and vide final order no.1575-1577/09 dt. 29.10.09, the tribunal has held that since upss, as seen from the literature produced, is equipment to protect perils such as spikes, surges, voltage fluctuations, blackouts and other aberrations, it is covered under clause (a) of sl.no.1 of the table to notification no.10/97 and the benefit of exemption under the notification is available to the goods in question. following the ratio of the above order, we uphold the present impugned order of the commissioner (appeals) and reject the appeal of the revenue.

Full Judgment

Per Jyoti Balasundaram

1. The issue in dispute in the present appeal of the Revenue is whether UPSS is covered under clause (a) of Sl.No.1 of the Table appended to Notification No.10/97-CE dt. 1.3.97.

2. On hearing both sides, we find that this issue had come up for consideration before the Tribunal in the appeals filed by the same assessees and vide Final Order No.1575-1577/09 dt. 29.10.09, the Tribunal has held that since UPSS, as seen from the literature produced, is equipment to protect perils such as spikes, surges, voltage fluctuations, blackouts and other aberrations, it is covered under clause (a) of Sl.No.1 of the Table to Notification No.10/97 and the benefit of exemption under the notification is available to the goods in question. Following the ratio of the above order, we uphold the present impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and reject the appeal of the Revenue.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chen... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry vs Numeric Power ... Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge The Honourable Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President &Amp; t...