Civil Appeal Nos. 6902-6904 of 2004. Case: Boving Fouress Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai. Supreme Court

Case Number:Civil Appeal Nos. 6902-6904 of 2004
Party Name:Boving Fouress Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Judges:Ashok Bhan and Markandey Katju, JJ.
Issue:Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 35C
Citation:2006 (202) ELT 389 (SC)
Judgement Date:August 29, 2006
Court:Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Order:

  1. The assessee-appellant has filed this appeal against Final Order Nos. 1292-1294/2004, dated 27th July, 2004 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (for short "the Tribunal") in Appeal Nos. E/l925/1999, E/14/2001 and E/1060/2003 whereby the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue and set aside the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner and remitted the case back to the appellate authority for redecision in the light of the observations made in the impugned order.

  2. The assessee, a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, is engaged in the business of manufacture of turbines and parts of turbines which are classifiable under Chapter Headings 8410.10 and 8410.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 [for short "the Tariff Act"]. The assessee-company is located at Hoskote in Bangalore. The assessee was served with a notice dated 25th January, 1999 proposing to deny the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 205/88-C.E. and subsequent Notification applicable to the clearance of the turbines manufactured by it which were cleared in completely knocked down (CKD) and semi-knocked down (SKD) conditions.

  3. The assessee was served with two other show cause notices dated 27th September, 1999 and 1st of March, 2000. The first show cause notice was confirmed by the Commissioner on merits and it was held that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit under the exemption Notification No. 205/88-C.E. and subsequent Notification Nos. 5/98-C.E. and 5/99-C.E., but, on limitation, the demand was quashed. The total duty demand was restricted to Rs. 17,400/- for a period of six months by the Commissioner with an equivalent penalty.

  4. Insofar as the subsequent notices are concerned, the authority-in-original confirmed the demand, aggrieved against which the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) resulting in the order under appeal. In the said order the first appellate authority granted exemption to the assessee under Notification No. 5/99-C.E. after setting aside the demand.

  5. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed two sets of appeals - one against the order passed by the Commissioner on limitation in the first show cause notice and the second against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) granting benefit of exemption under Notification No. 5/99-C.E. in the second set of show cause notices.

  6. The Tribunal by the...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL