M/s Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3973 of 2001
(From the Judgment and Order dated 08.12.2000 of the Central Excise-Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta in F. O. No. A -2020/Cal/2000 in A. No. E/2040 of 1991-B)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 08.12.2000 of the Central Excise-Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta in F. O. No. A -2020/Cal/2000 in A. No. E/2040 of 1991-B)
Petitioner: M/s Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.
Respondent: Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3973 of 2001
(From the Judgment and Order dated 08.12.2000 of the Central Excise-Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta in F. O. No. A -2020/Cal/2000 in A. No. E/2040 of 1991-B)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 08.12.2000 of the Central Excise-Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta in F. O. No. A -2020/Cal/2000 in A. No. E/2040 of 1991-B)
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU, CJI & G. P. MATHUR, J.
Date of Judgment: May 05, 2004
Appearances:
Mr. Ashok H. Desai, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rajan Narain, Mr. Ajay Aggarwal and Ms. Sonu Bhatnagar, Advocates with him for the Appellant.
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Advocate for the Respondent.
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Advocate for the Respondent.
Head Note:
EXCISE
Central Excise Act, 1944
Excise duty – Manufacture – Assembling of electric overhead travelling cranes – Whether excise duty payable on such cranes – Tribunal following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court (Patna) and holding that EOT cranes are to be subjected to payment of excise duty. Decision of the High Court having been set aside by the Supreme Court on appeal, held that EOT cranes cannot be subjected to the levy of excise duty. (Para 1)
Central Excise Act, 1944
Excise duty – Manufacture – Assembling of electric overhead travelling cranes – Whether excise duty payable on such cranes – Tribunal following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court (Patna) and holding that EOT cranes are to be subjected to payment of excise duty. Decision of the High Court having been set aside by the Supreme Court on appeal, held that EOT cranes cannot be subjected to the levy of excise duty. (Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
RAJENDRA BABU, CJI
1. The question raised in this appeal is whether Electric Overhead Travelling (EOT) Cranes are liable to excise duty or not. In the order under appeal, the tribunal proceeded on the basis that the Revenue’s contention that the activity of the appellant in the manufacture and clearance of the complete crane in semi-knocked down condition is manufacture of crane parts had already been decided by the Patna High Court in the appellant’s case having notified that the decision of the Patna High Court is still a good law not having been interfered by this Court till date. And therefore held that the goods in question to the complete cranes fall under Heading 81.26. However, on the question of limitation, the tribunal held in favour of the appellant. On 9th February, 2000, this Court in civil appeal nos.141466 of 1998 and 102 of 1999 allowed the appeals of appellants against the decision of the Patna High Court, set aside the orders of the respondents as well as of the High Court and held that no excise duty is payable on the EOT cranes as assembled. In the result, we set aside this part of the order made by the tribunal and remit the matter to it for fresh examination in the light of the order of this Court.
2. Insofar as the question of limitation and other aspects are concerned, we do not interfere with the order made by the tribunal. Only to the extent indicated above, the order of the tribunal is set aside.
3. Appeal allowed accordingly.
1. The question raised in this appeal is whether Electric Overhead Travelling (EOT) Cranes are liable to excise duty or not. In the order under appeal, the tribunal proceeded on the basis that the Revenue’s contention that the activity of the appellant in the manufacture and clearance of the complete crane in semi-knocked down condition is manufacture of crane parts had already been decided by the Patna High Court in the appellant’s case having notified that the decision of the Patna High Court is still a good law not having been interfered by this Court till date. And therefore held that the goods in question to the complete cranes fall under Heading 81.26. However, on the question of limitation, the tribunal held in favour of the appellant. On 9th February, 2000, this Court in civil appeal nos.141466 of 1998 and 102 of 1999 allowed the appeals of appellants against the decision of the Patna High Court, set aside the orders of the respondents as well as of the High Court and held that no excise duty is payable on the EOT cranes as assembled. In the result, we set aside this part of the order made by the tribunal and remit the matter to it for fresh examination in the light of the order of this Court.
2. Insofar as the question of limitation and other aspects are concerned, we do not interfere with the order made by the tribunal. Only to the extent indicated above, the order of the tribunal is set aside.
3. Appeal allowed accordingly.
