Circular No.634/25/2002-CX dated 17/04/2002
Important CEGAT Orders Favourable to the Department
Subject: List of important CEGAT Orders favourable to the Department -Regarding...
I am directed to given below a list containing the gist of important CEGAT Orders wherein the Department has been able to secure a favourable decision for necessary action at your end.
Sd/-
(Sungita Sharma)
D.S. (Review)
F .No. 390/122/2001-JC
HEAD NOTES
In respect of CEGAT Final Order No.239/2001-B dated 30.04.2001
In Appeal No. E/3322/2000-B
in the case of: M/s. Pragati Silicons P. Ltd.
Vs.
CCE Delhi-III.
Issue: Classification of Name Plates, Emblems. Labels for use on Motor Vehicles
- Whether these items are classifiable under Chapter 87 of CETA as
parts of Motor Vehicle or under sub-heading 3926.90 as other articles
of plastics.
Held: Classification - Name Plates, Emblems, Labels made of plastics for use on
Motor Vehicles are correctly classifiable under sub-heading 3926.90 and not
under Chapter 87 of CETA as these items are not to be treated as parts of
motor vehicles since Motor Vehicle is a complete vehicle without affixation
of emblems on Name Plates.
In respect of CEGAT Final Order No.248/2001-B dated 4.5.2001
In Appeal No. E/2676/94-B
In the case of: CCE, Chandigarh
Vs.
Gabriel India Ltd.
Issue: Classification of Bushes and Thrust Washers -Whether these are
classifiable as parts of the machine for which these are specifically
designed or under Heading 84.83 as Plain Shaft Bearing
Held: Classification -Bushes & Thrus1 Washers -not classifiable under
heading 84.83 of CETA, 1985 as these are not plain shaft bearing and the
heading does not cover bushes or washers. In absence of ring of anti-friction
metal or other material, the impugned product cannot be classified under
heading 84.83 -The impugned goods would be classified under the same heading
in which the machines for which they are used are classifiable.
In respect of CEGAT Final Order No.242 to 244/2001-B dated 1.5.2001
In Appeal No. E/761- 763/98-B
In the case of: Fedders Lloyd Corporation Ltd.
Vs.
CCE, Mumbai-II
Issue: Whether clearance of duty paid parts of air-conditioners after testing
and affixing brand name for installation of split air-conditioner at buyers
premises amounts to manufacture of split air-conditioners.
Held: The appellants receive condensing unit and cooling unit from their
other units and procure other parts from the market. These parts are tested
and cleared after affixing brand name. Therefore, the split air-conditioner
in unassembled form came into existence at the appellant"s premises and they
are liable to pay Central Excise duty. The activity amounts to manufacture
of excisable goods.
In respect of CEGAT Final Order No. 254/2001-B dated 21.5.2001
In Appeal No. E/950/95-B
In the case of: CCE Mumbai-I
Vs.
Unicon Connectors (P) Ltd.
Issue: Classification of insulated wire/cable fitted with connectors -
Whether under heading 85.44 or 85.22/85.29. Classification claimed under
85.22/85.29 on the ground manufacture is only of connectors which are
thereafter fitted with wires purchased from market.
Held: Insulated wires and cables fitted with connectors would fall under
85.44 holding that classification cannot depend upon the fact as to who
manufactures the raw material/inputs.
In respect of Final Order No. 1182/2001 (SZB-Chennai) dtd. 20.7.01
In Appeal No.E/Misc./68/01.
In the case of: Sri Chandra Tobacco Ltd. Vs. CCE, New Delhi
Issue: Locus standi -(1) Whether a person who was appointed Director
subsequent to filing of appeal is having locus standi to file the appeal on
behalf of the company?
(2) Whether the question of locus standi can be raised at a subsequent
occasion i.e., after restoration of the appeal filed by the same person.
Held: (1) Locus standi -The person filing an appeal on behalf of a company must
be having a restoration passed by the Board of Directors under Company Act,
1956 appointing him as Director to contest the case on behalf of the company.
In the absence of such restoration appeal cannot be entertained [Para 10].
(2) The question of locus standi of the person can be raised even after
admission/restoration of appeal.
In respect of CEGAT Final Order No.360/2002-B dtd. 14.6.2001
In Appeal No. E/4564/94-B
In the case of: M/s Sunaren Industries vs. CCE, Rajkot
Issue: (1) Whether by use of brand name of Marketing Company, namely LMS
said to be the abbreviation of later father"s name would affect availing of
the benefit of Notfn. No. 175/86.
(2) Whether two companies are related persons.
Held: (i) Affixing of Brand Name "LMS" belonging to a Marketing company
..........Exemption under Notification 175/86 not available.
(ii) Mutuality of interest in the shape of holder of 25% share in
Marketing Company ......... supply of entire production and interest free
loans to them ........... Bearing all sales promotion Expenses by Manufacturing
Company ......... Marketing & Manufacturing Company are related persons.
Gears: Classifiable under heading 84.83 as per note 2(a) to Section XVI of
CETA.
In respect of CEGAT Order No. 399/2001-B dtd. 2.8.2001
In Appeal No. E/S/1046/2001-B in E/1383/2001-B
In the case of: M/s Special Machines vs. CCE, Delhi-III
Stay: Filed against a letter issued by Supdt. (Adj.) -Whether becomes an
appealable order before the Tribunal
Held: Supdt."s letter was not an appealable order before the Tribunal being
not passed by the adjudicating authority i.e., the Commissioner -Appeal for
stay of the letter rejected.
Presented by eximkey.com