C.C.E., Jaipur-I vs M/S Kamal Coach Works (P) Ltd
- CitationAppeal No. E/1675/2006-EX (DB)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a respondent's findings of fact made by the first appellate authority are not challenged in the appeal, the appellate tribunal will not interfere with them; in the absence of any sustainable ground challenging those unchallenged findings, the revenue's appeal is dismissed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of OIA No. 54(MPM) CE/JPR-I/2006 dated 13.02.2006 passed by Commissioner (Appeals-I) Central Excise, Jaipur)
1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
C.C.E., Jaipur-I Appellant
Vs.
M/s Kamal Coach Works (P) Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Present for the Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar, DR
Present for the Respondent: None
Coram: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial),
Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
Final Order No. 52331/2015
Per: B. Ravichandran
Revenue is in appeal in this case against Order-in-Appeal dated 07/3/2006 passed by Commissioner (Appeals). The Respondent are engaged in the manufacturer of Plant & Machinery and Motor Vehicle. During the course of scrutiny the returns filed by the respondent it was noticed that they have cleared some goods on payment of duty and the aggregate value for arriving at SSI exemption has not been taken properly. Proceeding was initiated, the original authority confirmed the demand with equal penalty. On appeal the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order and allowed the appeal.
2. Aggrieved by the impugned order the revenue is in appeal now. It has been pleaded that the value of clearances of Motor Vehicles, Aluminum scrap and M.S. scrap cleared on payment of duty are to be added in the aggregate value of clearances for the purposes of Notification No.8/2003-CE since scrap etc. has been cleared of payment of duty, it will amount to deemed option of not availing exemption under the said notification.
3. The ld. AR reiterated the ground of appeal.
4. None appeared for the respondent. In the grounds of appeal the Revenue is silent about clear findings of ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order regarding the Respondent clearing body built Motor Vehicles with the brand name of TATA to the Regional Sales Office of TATA Motors. Accordingly, the value of branded Motor Vehicle Bodies is not includible in arriving at aggregate value of first clearance of specified goods. He also recorded that value of all excisable goods cleared other than branded goods upto 28.4.2004 comes to Rs.10,40,542/- (Rupees ten lakhs forty thousand and five hundred forty two only) accordingly he held the demand is unsustainable. These findings are not challenged in appeal and we find no sustainable ground to interfere with the findings of ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly we dismiss the appeal.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(ASHOK JINDAL)
Member (Judicial)
(B. RAVICHANDRAN)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
K. Gupta
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free