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

D.C.MANDAL, JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, S.L.PEERAN
ICEM Engineering Co. (P. ) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
V. Sridharan,L.C. Chakraborthy

ORDER

S.L. Peeran, Member (J)

1. The appellants have filed the above two captioned appeals under Section 35B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), challenging the validity and correctness of the Orders-in-appeal No. HN 994/B III - 432/86, dated 3-4-1987 and No. HN-1003/B III - 435/86 (File No. V-2(68) 95/35, dated 3-4-1987 respectively, passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay. As the question of law and points for determination are the same, except for difference in period, both the appeals were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order :-

2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to these appeals are that the appellants are structural engineers engaged in the process of fabrication of the structures. They take job work from customers and mainly of M/s. Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engineering Limited, who supply the raw materials to them. They carry on fabrication work of cutting and bending the raw materials supplied by their customers and the same are returned to them as semi-finished structures. There is no manufacture and semi-finished structures are not goods. On this question of whether the job activity undertaken by t

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