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

194 under Section 4A read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In appeal preferred by the respondent, the aforesaid demand was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order in original dated 13.02.2002, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal of the respondent. Next level appeal filed by the respondent before the CESTAT, Bangalore, however, yielded

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