Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing East India Transformer And Switch Gears ... vs Collector Of Central Excise on 22 March, 1989

Collector Of Central Excise vs Karna Industries on 7 January, 1992

With a uniform charge the customer is in a better position to get one year repair warranty of the same. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that no manufacturing activity is involved and the activity is in the nature of repair. Thus the argument of Shri Arora is not tenable. The Tribunal in the case of East India Transformers & Switch Gears (P) Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1989 (43) ELT 561 (Tribunal) has held that the repair of transformers does not amount to 'manufacture'. Paras 12 and 13 of the said judgment which is relevant to the issue is reproduced below: "We observe that the process of repair of the transformer as set out in the Assistant Collector's order essentially consisted of replacement of the transformer oil and the H.T. leg coils and change of some minor parts. While holding the repair work done as manufacture, the Assistant Collector has merely stated that in the Circumstances it amounts to manufacture rather than repair. The Collector (Appeals) in his order has rightly observed as under:-
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 36 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Lucas Tvs Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 8 May, 1995

3. Shri M.K. Jain, Departmental Representative, points out that Tariff Item 61 includes switches, plugs and sockets, all kinds and this description covers the goods in question. He relies upon the Tariff Advice No. 153, dated 5-12-1981 of the Central Board of Excise and Customs to say that switches of all kinds will be classifiable under Tariff Item 61 and on the decision of this Tribunal in Bombay Switch Gear v. Collector Customs -1985 (22) E.L.T. 611.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gautam Cable Industries vs Collector Of Central Excise on 14 February, 1996

Again the Tribunal in the case of Rajasthan Transformers & Switch Gears (supra) held that the procedural lapses should not come in the way of substantive statutory rights and that MODVAT benefit cannot be denied even if there are certain differences in the declaration. The Tribunal has noted the judgment of different High Courts. While holding this view the position has also been clarified in the trade notice 24/88-C.E., dated 26-2-1988. Although the goods in this case may be different inasmuch as, being coated and uncoated with zinc but both the items fall under the same subheading and both are specified inputs for grant of MODVAT Credit. The position would have been different if the input wires coated with zinc were not specified inputs, then in that event there would have been misdeclaration or misutilisation of MODVAT Credit and the department would have been justified in raising the demands. In a similar situation, the parties had cleared the goods without Central Excise licence and paying excise duty on a bona fide belief that the goods were exempted. The department had raised demands. The parties had contended that they were entitled for MODVAT Credit. The department had taken objection that the parties had not filed the declaration and hence no MODVAT Credit can be granted to them.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Paras Electricals Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 16 April, 1996

In reply, the ld. Counsel cited the Tribunal decision in the case of Rajasthan Transformers and Switch Gears v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur reported in 1995 (7) RLT (CEGAT-NRB) and submitted that even broad description of inputs should be acceptable for Modvat purposes if the private statutory records maintained by the assessee show the real utilisation of the inputs.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1