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

K.L.REKHI, HARISH CHANDER
Collector of Central Excise – Appellant
Versus
General Cement Products (P. ) Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
J.N. Nigam,J.S. Aggarwal

ORDER

K.L. Rekhi, Member (T)

1. In the first instance the six applications for condonation of delay were taken up for consideration. The applications relate to filing of the Supplementary Appeals by the Department. The main consolidated appeal of the Department, against the consolidated impugned Order-in-Appeal, was filed within the prescribed time-limit. The learned Advocate of the Respondents did not oppose the applications for condonation of delay. We condoned the delay and took the supplementary appeals on record.

2. The Appeals themselves were heard thereafter. On careful consideration of the submissions of both the sides and record, we find the common point of dispute in all the seven appeals is whether Central Excise duty is payable on one per cent or so of Cement Concrete Poles destroyed during the quality control testing within the factory or not. The contention of the Department is that the goods were fully manufactured prior to the testing, they were accounted for as the day's production in the statutory RG-1 Register and thereafter they were deposited in the bonded store room of the factory; if the goods were removed from the bonded store room for testing, an exemption Not

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