Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S. Kothari Sugars & Chemicals Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Trichy on 22 July, 2009

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
		APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI

Appeal No. E/444/2003

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.67/2003 (TRY) (ADK) dated 28.2.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy)

For approval and signature:

Honble Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member 

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s. Kothari Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.			Appellants

     
     Vs.


Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy	        Respondent

Appearance Shri P.C. Anand, Consultant, for the Appellants Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR for the Respondent CORAM Honble Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 22.07.2009 Date of Decision: 22.07.2009 Final Order No. ____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram Credit of Rs.74,642/- has been disallowed on Sub Assembly of module systems MOD system on the ground that it falls for classification under heading not enumerated in Rule 57Q which defines capital goods.

2. We have heard both sides. We find that the plea of the assessees in the reply to the show cause notice has been that the item in dispute is a part of module system which is instrument control cable and process indicator on which credit has been allowed. The authorities below have denied credit on the ground that the assessees had not indicated which machine or machinery the item in dispute would form a part of components, spares and accessories of machines and machinery enumerated in clause (a) to (c) to Rule 57Q would be eligible to credit under clause (d) of Rule 57Q. However, it is for the authorities below to examine the claim of the assessees that the item in dispute is a part of instrument control cable and process indicator falling under Chapter heading 90.32 on which credit has been extended. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the case to the lower appellate authority for fresh decision in accordance with law. He shall pass fresh orders after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessees of being heard in their defence.

3. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)





(Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy) 		  (Jyoti Balasundaram)
        Technical Member 			         Vice President

Rex 



??

??

??

??




3