Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.62 seconds)
Documents citing Rupa & Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs, Kolkata on 31 January, 2002

Cc vs S.P. Apparels on 14 October, 2003

Reliance was placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of J.K. Cotton Mills 1997 (91) ELT 34 (SC) where the Court had observed that the expression "in the manufacture of goods" should normally encompass the entire processes carried on by the dealer for converting raw materials into finished goods wherein the particular process is so integrally connected with the ultimate production of the goods that but for that process manufacturing of processing of goods would be commercially inexpedient. Goods 'required' in that process would in our judgment fall within the expression "in the manufacture of goods". Based on the above, it was decided by the CEGAT, Chennai, that the manufacture of textile garments/knitted garments. The CEGAT, EZB, Kolkata, in the case of M/s. Rupa & Co. Ltd. (supra) also stated that processing machines, including Fabric Inspection Machines, used to avoid manufacturing defects are required for manufacture of garments as "the process of manufacture of textile garments.... States with the inspection and reversal of the fabric and thereafter various process are required to be undergone for the actual manufacture of garments.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Premina Exports And 24 Ors. vs Commissioner Of Customs on 17 September, 2002

(7) In the case of Rupa & Co. (Supra) the knitting machine was not under consideration but only machines for processing. Hence the Tribunal did not have occassion to give any ruling regarding the knitting machine. Hence no inference can be drawn from this decision that the production of garments will start only with fabric processing machines.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Premina Exports And 24 Ors. vs Cc on 17 September, 2002

7) In the case of Rupa & Co. (Supra) the knitting machine was not under consideration but only machines for processing. Hence the Tribunal did not have occasion to give any ruling regarding the knitting machine. Hence no inference can be drawn from this decision that the production of garments will start only with fabric processing machines.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Ruia Cotex Ltd. vs Cc (Air Cargo), Nch on 3 April, 2002

1. Shri S.C. Chakraborty, Ld. counsel of the applicant submits that the head office of the company is in Calcutta and therefore the appeal filed by the applicant may be retained in the East Regional Bench at Kolkata. The request is allowed, the appeal is allowed to be retained in Calcutta. As the issue in the appeal was the same as one decided by the Tribunal in the case of Rupa & Co. Ltd. v. CC, Kolkata 2002 (81) ECC 520 (Tri) contained in Order No. A-154/Kol/2002 dt. 31.1.2002 with the consent of both the parties it was decided to hear the appeal itself after dispensing with the conditions of pre-deposit of duty.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Customs vs S.C.M. International on 30 June, 2003

7. We have considered the rival submissions and find that all the Respondents/Assessees have imported Circular knitting machine, Dyeing Machines, etc., and it has been held by this Bench as well as other co-ordinated Benches that they are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 29/97-Cus., dated 1-4-97 and since they are imported by manufacturers' of garments and they are meant for manufacture of garments which are ultimately exported. We have taken up this view in the case of Premina Exports and 24 Ors. v. CCE reported in 2002 (148) E.L.T. 1065 (T) = 2002 (53) RLT 197 and in the case of Geethalaya Exports v. CC, Tricky reported in 2003 (162) E.L.T. 590 (T) = 2003 (54) RLT 799 by following the judgments rendered by the ERB, Kolkota in the case of Rupa & Co, (supra). We also observe that proposals alone are reported to have been sent to the CBEC for filing appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment rendered by this Bench as well as other co-ordinated Benches. There is nothing on record that they have filed an appeal and such appeal has been admitted and stay obtained. Since it is only a proposal, and no stay against the order of this Bench as well as other co-ordinated Benches have been obtained, we do not consider it necessary to take note of such proposed action by the Revenue. In view of the consistent decision taken by this Bench following the judgment rendered by other co-ordinated Benches, we do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the Revenue. Therefore, we reject all the five appeals filed by the Revenue by sustaining the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Stay Applications are also disposed off. Ordered accordingly.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Geethalaya Exports vs Commissioner Of Customs on 8 November, 2002

4. We have carefully considered the case records and the judgments rendered by this Bench in the case of Premina Exports and 24 others (supra) and the judgments rendered by the Kolkata Bench in the case of Rupa & Co. Ltd. v. CC, Kolkata (supra) and Ruia Cotex Ltd. v. CC (Air cargo), NCH, New Delhi (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the knitting machines imported through the EPCG scheme are meant for the actual process of manufacturing the final product i.e., readymade garments for export and are entitled for exemption under Notification No. 29/97, dated 1-4-1997, under EPCG scheme. By respectfully following the above judgments, we allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order. Ordered accordingly.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1