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

R.JAYARAMAN, P.K.DESAI
Jayshree Industries – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S.P. Sheth, D.H. Shah,K.M. Mondal

ORDER

R. Jayaraman, Member (T)

1. All the above 15 Appeals are against the Common Order in Appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals) under his Order No. 363 to 377/91, dated 25-4-1991.

2. Since the issue involved in all these appeals is one and the same, they were heard together and hence proposed to be disposed of by this common order.

3. Though, in some cases, some minor issues (which are not common) exist, the Ld. Advocate pleaded that they have not appealed against them and they are pressing only, one issue namely the eligibility of Modvat Credit in respect of duty paid on dry battery cells fitted to the Quartz, Clocks and time pieces.

4. All the four appellants referred to above are engaged in the manufacture of Quartz, Wall Clocks classifiable under 9105.00 of Central Excise Tariff. They bring in duty paid dry battery cells, which are reportedly placed in the battery compartment in such a manner to prevent leakage of the dry cells and thereafter sealed and packed for delivery at the factory gate to the buyers. They filed a declaration under the Modvat Scheme, showing these battery cells as an input against the final product Quartz, Wall Clocks. This, however, came to be objected to

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