Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. M/s. Eros Metal Works
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 722-723 of 1988.
(From the Order dated 30.4.1987 of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal Nos. 246 and 247/86-D)
(From the Order dated 30.4.1987 of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal Nos. 246 and 247/86-D)
Petitioner: Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur
Respondent: M/s. Eros Metal Works
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 722-723 of 1988.
(From the Order dated 30.4.1987 of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal Nos. 246 and 247/86-D)
(From the Order dated 30.4.1987 of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal Nos. 246 and 247/86-D)
Judges: SABYASACHI MUKHARJI & S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 11, 1988
Appearances:
Mr. Kuldip Singh, Additional Solicitor General, Mr. R.P. Srivastava and Mrs. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him for the Appellant.
Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, Sr. Advocate, Mr. V. Lekshmi Kumaran, Mr. V. Balchandran, Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Advocates with him for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALT ACT, 1944:
Whether the steel furniture was manufactured with the aid of power or without – The decision of the Tribunal in favour of the respondent upheld.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
These are appeals from the order of the Tribunal. The question was whether steel furniture was manufactured with the aid of power or without the aid of power. The Tribunal has come to the finding in favour of the respondent on the basis of evidence on record. We find that there is no violation of any principle of law, as such, and the view taken is a possible view of the matter. In that view of the matter we decline to admit the appeals. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
These are appeals from the order of the Tribunal. The question was whether steel furniture was manufactured with the aid of power or without the aid of power. The Tribunal has come to the finding in favour of the respondent on the basis of evidence on record. We find that there is no violation of any principle of law, as such, and the view taken is a possible view of the matter. In that view of the matter we decline to admit the appeals. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
