COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE HYDERABAD vs. M/S SARVOTHAM CARE LIMITED

1-3-1975, the introduction of Item 68 makes a difference to the interpretation of Item 26-AA. This is not correct. Item 68 was only intended as a residuary item. It covers goods not expressly mentioned in any of the earlier items. If, as assumed by the Tribunal, the poles manufactured were rightly classified under Item

M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Processing & Hence A Substantial Increase In The Value Of These Inputs Has Escaped Payment Of Duty On Account Of Value Addition In Such Inputs After Processing. More Specifically, What Was Alleged Was That Various Spare Parts Relatable To Motor Vehicles That Were Manufactured By The Appellant & Were Procured By It In The Form Of Bumpers, Grills, Etc., On Which The Process Of Electro Deposition Coating, Namely, Edc Took Place (Which Was In The Nature Of Anti-Rust So That The Shelf Life Of The Said Bumpers, Grills, Etc., Would Be Generally Increased) Have Escaped Duty On

68,07,499/- and proceeded also to impose an equivalent penalty of the same amount with the caveat that 25 per cent of the penalty amount would be payable if it is paid within 30 days of the date of communication of the order. The appeal filed before Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Page

M/S. SERVO-MED INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is hereby set aside

Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, there is no mention of the test of integral or inextricable process and found that the wrong test had been applied to arrive at the wrong result. 5. The CESTAT in turn set aside the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) observing: “An Article with distinct brand name