SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

R.JAYARAMAN, P.K.DESAI
Bajaj Tempo Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Pune – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
C.S. Lodha, B.N. Rangwani,Ravinder Jain

ORDER

R. Jayaraman, Member (T)

1. All the three appeals listed above involve consideration of the same issues and hence were heard together. The appeals are against the Orders-in-Appeal indicated against each as below:

2.1 Appeal No. 300/93 is against the order-in-appeal No. P-64/93 dated 18-3-1993 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune, Appeal Nos. 298/93 299/93 are against the order No. A-35/93 dated 18-3-1993 passed by the same Collector (Appeals), Pune.

2.2 The issue common to all the three appeals can be briefly stated as below : The appellants M/s. Bajaj Tempo are manufacturer of Motor Vehicles. They have more than one manufacturing unit. They receive inputs under Modvat scheme in respect of materials, which they utilise in the manufacture of Motor Vehicle parts and I.C. Engines. These motor vehicle parts and I.C. Engines are partly utilised in the further manufacture of motor vehicles in the same factory and partly sent under Chapter X Procedure for further utilisation in the manufacture of motor vehicles in another unit belonging to the appellants, in terms of exemption Notice 217/86 dated 2-4-1986 as amended by Notification 97/89 dated 1-3-1989.

2.3 The appella

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top