TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds excisability decision on vehicle chassis parts under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. (A), GUNTUR Versus ANDHRA SUGARS LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. (A), GUNTUR Versus ANDHRA SUGARS LTD. - 2007 (213) E.L.T. 378 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues involved: Excisability of parts moulded/fitted to motor vehicle chassis used for transportation of chemicals; Benefit of Notification No. 6/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 Sl. No. 253; Finality of orders not appealed by Revenue.Excisability of parts moulded/fitted to motor vehicle chassis used for transportation of chemicals:The issue in this case revolved around the excisability of parts moulded/fitted to motor vehicle chassis used for transporting chemicals. The Respondents claimed the benefit of Notification No. 6/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 Sl. No. 253. The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) based his decision on earlier orders and a Tribunal ruling in the case of Sree Rayalaseema Alkalies & Allied Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE - 1998 (104) E.L.T. 573 (T), which held that materials used in fabrication and mounting of tankers are eligible for certain benefits.Benefit of Notification No. 6/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 Sl. No. 253:The Respondents in this case were seeking the benefit of Notification No. 6/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 Sl. No. 253. The Commissioner (A) referred to his earlier Order-in-Appeal and Order-in-Original, as well as the Tribunal ruling in Sree Rayalaseema Alkalies & Allied Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE, to support his decision. The issue was carefully considered, and it was found that there was no ground to interfere with the impugned order, leading to the rejection of the appeals and cross-objection as infructuous.Finality of orders not appealed by Revenue:The learned Counsel argued that the cited Orders referred to by the Commissioner (A) in the impugned order were not appealed by the Revenue, making them final. Citing judgments such as Jayaswals Neco Limited v. CCE - 2006 (195) E.L.T. 142 (S.C.), Birla Corporation Ltd. v. CCE - 2005 (186) E.L.T. 266 (S.C.), and IOC Limited v. CCE - 2006 (202) E.L.T. 37 (S.C.), it was contended that in such situations, the appeal becomes infructuous. The Tribunal concurred with this view and rejected the appeals and cross-objection on this basis.
TaxTMI 