Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company ... vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 8 August, 2001
4. The learned Counsel also mentioned that Rule 2(a) of the Rules for the Interpretation of the Schedule is not invokable in the present matter; that car air-conditioner does never come into existence as an air-conditioner as different parts of the car air-conditioner get fitted in different parts of the car; for example the condenser assembly is mounted between the front bumper and car radiator whereas the compressor is mounted on the engine and control panel assembly on instrument panel; that as per Interpretative Rule 2(a), any reference in a Heading to goods shall be taken to include a reference to those goods, removed unassembled or dis-assembled; that thus by virtue of Rule 2(a), a consignment of the air-conditioning machine in an unassembled condition would be covered by or fall within the description 'Air-conditioning machine' under Heading 84.15; that, however, Rule 2(a) does not create a deeming fiction to the effect that the goods in unassembled condition would be deemed to be complete or finished goods; that thus, even after application of Rule 2(a), a consignment consisting of all parts of air-conditioning machine would continue to be covered by description "parts" while simultaneously qualifying for being equally covered by description "air-conditioning machine in unassembled condition"; that two contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time; that, however, a truthful statement may be expressed in more than one way and consequently collection of parts is covered by description; that in the present matter the question is not whether heap of parts would be covered by the description used in Heading 84.15; that the question is whether heap of parts would be covered by the description 'parts of air-conditioning machine' employed in the Notification; that for deciding the applicability of an exemption notification all one has to see is that the items are covered by the description given in the Notification and it is wholly irrelevant that they can legally be covered by another description as well; that thus the benefit of Notification No. 22/2000 cannot be denied to the Appellants. He relied upon the decisions in Tata Engg, & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. CCE & C, Pune - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 1316 (T) and Majestic Auto Ltd. v. CCE - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 551 (T).
Majestic Auto Ltd. vs C.C.E., Meerut-I on 11 May, 2001
4. The learned Counsel also mentioned that Rule 2(a) of the Rules for the Interpretation of the Schedule is not invokable in the present matter; that car air-conditioner does never come into existence as an air-conditioner as different parts of the car air-conditioner get fitted in different parts of the car; for example the condenser assembly is mounted between the front bumper and car radiator whereas the compressor is mounted on the engine and control panel assembly on instrument panel; that as per Interpretative Rule 2(a), any reference in a Heading to goods shall be taken to include a reference to those goods, removed unassembled or dis-assembled; that thus by virtue of Rule 2(a), a consignment of the air-conditioning machine in an unassembled condition would be covered by or fall within the description 'Air-conditioning machine' under Heading 84.15; that, however, Rule 2(a) does not create a deeming fiction to the effect that the goods in unassembled condition would be deemed to be complete or finished goods; that thus, even after application of Rule 2(a), a consignment consisting of all parts of air-conditioning machine would continue to be covered by description "parts" while simultaneously qualifying for being equally covered by description "air-conditioning machine in unassembled condition"; that two contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time; that, however, a truthful statement may be expressed in more than one way and consequently collection of parts is covered by description; that in the present matter the question is not whether heap of parts would be covered by the description used in Heading 84.15; that the question is whether heap of parts would be covered by the description 'parts of air-conditioning machine' employed in the Notification; that for deciding the applicability of an exemption notification all one has to see is that the items are covered by the description given in the Notification and it is wholly irrelevant that they can legally be covered by another description as well; that thus the benefit of Notification No. 22/2000 cannot be denied to the Appellants. He relied upon the decisions in Tata Engg, & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. CCE & C, Pune - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 1316 (T) and Majestic Auto Ltd. v. CCE - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 551 (T).
Regional Manager & Anr vs Pawan Kumar Dubey on 8 March, 1976
6.1 Countering the arguments, Shri M. Chandrashekharan, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the Appellants have themselves taken a professional advice from the learned Advocate for the Appellants who has advised that Special Excise Duty should be paid on all supplies which constitute a complete A.C. kit whether supplied together or separately from different plants under different purchase Orders and invoices; that the Commissioner has rightly referred to said legal advice produced by the Appellants themselves; that the documents were shown to the representative of the Appellants who appeared for personal hearing; that this fact has not been denied by him as only the company has given an affidavit which is not relevant; that a number of decisions have been relied upon by the learned Advocate for the Appellants without making any efforts to show that the facts in those decisions are similar to the facts in the present matters. He relied upon the decision in the Regional Manager v. Pawan Kumar Dubey - AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1766 wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that "it is the rule deductible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of a case which constitutes its ratio decident and not some conclusion based upon facts which may appear to be similar. One additional or different fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases even when the same principles are supplied in each case to similar facts ".
Sony India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs, Icd, New Delhi on 28 May, 2002
Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Sony India v. Commissioner of Customs - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 411 (T-LB). He, further, submitted that the findings of the Commissioner that they had floated the second unit only to smoother the operations and claiming exemption is ex-facie erroneous and incorrect; that if this finding is taken to be correct, the clearances of all manufacturers from one or more factories have to be clubbed in order to determine the eligibility of any exemption as in the case of small-scale exemption notification; that there is no condition in the Notification that the clearances of two or more units of the same manufacturer are to be clubbed to determine whether they are entitled for the exemption.
Shiv Shakti Enterprises vs Collector Of Customs on 31 August, 1990
The learned Sr. Counsel, therefore contended that in the present matter the Commissioner has rightly combined the clearances of both Plant I and Plant II; that in Shiv Shakti Enterprises v. Collector of Customs - 1991 (52) E.L.T. 439 (T) also, the Tribunal held that "the goods imported by the appellants in the two bills of entry are to be clubbed together." The learned Senior Counsel also mentioned that it is well settled legal position that corporate veil can be pierced to see as to who is controlling all the affairs.
State Of U.P. And Ors vs Renusagar Power Co. And Others on 28 July, 1988
He relied upon the judgment in the case of State of U.P. v. Renusagar Power Co. - 1988 (4) S.C.C. 59 wherein the Supreme Court has held that "the veil on corporate personality even though not lifted sometimes, is becoming more and more transparent in modern company jurisprudence.
Naffar Chandra Jute Mills Ltd. And Ors. vs The Assistant Collector Of Central ... on 3 March, 1993
Reliance has also been placed on the decision in Nafar Chanda Jute Mills Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise - 1993 (66) E.L.T. 574 (Cal.) wherein the Calcutta High Court has held that Rules of Interpretation are applicable to exemption notification as well.
Sharp Business Machines Pvt. Ltd.. ... vs Collector Of Customs, Bangalore on 24 August, 1990
6.2 The learned Senior Counsel, further, submitted that it has been mentioned by the Commissioner in the impugned Order that the cooling assembly unit and condenser assembly of car air-conditioner manufactured in Plant I are transferred to Plant II and then the same are supplied by the Appellants to their customers; that in their classification declaration effective from 15-10-99, the Appellants have declared "air-conditioner kit for model 'B' consisting of gas compressor with magnetic clutch, cooling unit, condenser assembly and parts and accessories"; that thus kit consists of all the elements which makes a complete car air-conditioner; that initially the Appellants were manufacturing all the sub-assemblies of car air-conditioner at Plant I and in order to meet the heavy demands, they started Plant II; that the sub-assemblies manufactured at Plant I are transferred to Plant II to be used as inputs of the automative air-conditioner system which is completed at Plant II and finally cleared as end-products i.e. automative car air-conditioner to their customers. He also mentioned that M/s. Subros Limited is one legal entity and separate units have been established so as to smoothen the work; that this is strengthened from the fact that their customers were corresponding not with Plant I and Plant II but with M/s. Subros Limited only and they were not talking about parts of air-conditioners but about car air-conditioners. He relied upon the decision in Sharp Business Machines Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs - 1990 (49) E.L.T. 640 (S.C.). In the said matter the Department has held that the goods covered by three bills of entry to be one consignment which amounted to the import of ten copiers. The Supreme Court held that the "Tribunal was not right in setting aside the finding of the adjudicating authority and in taking the view that one has to look into the respective licence and not to the fact that if all the consignments covered by all the bills of entry assembled together, there will be a full and complete machine."
Andhra Pradesh Heavy Machinery & ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raipur on 9 October, 2001
3.1 The learned Counsel submitted that the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty holding that the clearance of parts made from both the plants are to be clubbed for the purpose of determining the benefit of exemption from payment of Special Excise Duty (SED); that the clubbing of the clearances made by the two independently Central Excise registered units of the same manufacturers under the jurisdiction of different offices, to determine the eligibility of the exemption is ex-facie erroneous and contrary to well settled legal position; that it is settled law that the goods manufactured in a factory and cleared therefrom have to be assessed to duty in the condition in which they leave the factory; that any further operation or process done on the goods is totally irrelevant and extraneous for the purpose of classification; that it is also settled legal position that goods manufactured and cleared from each unit, may be of the same entity, are to be assessed to duty separately and not by clubbing the clearances of all the units; that the Central Excise law does not permit the assessment of the goods to duty based on such clubbing of clearances of various units located in different places and effected at different points of time. He relied upon the decision in the case of A.P. Heavy Machinery & Engg. Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad - 2001 (128) E.L.T. 155 (T) wherein it has been held that ''these units of the same corporate entity situated in three different municipal limits cannot be considered as the same manufacturer..... The goods are to be assessed in the condition in which they are presented for the purpose of assessment, the duty is to be assessed when the goods are being removed from the place of removal i.e. factory gate."
1