Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : M.B.Control & Systems Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)
Appeal Number : Excise Appeal No. 129 of 2012
Date of Judgement/Order : 04/07/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

M.B.Control & Systems Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)

CESTAT Kolkata held that activity undertaken by the appellant as calibration tests and upgradation/configuration of the appliances according to the requirements/specifications of the customers, does not amount to manufacture as no new product came into existence. Hence, demand unsustained.

Facts- The appellant had taken Dealers Registration for dealing with excisable goods. The appellant was mostly importing the electronic goods and also procuring some negligible quantity indigenously such as Power Meters, Control Pannels, Infrared Thermometers, PID Controllers, Non-contract I.R. Sensors, SMPS, Span Power Supply Controllers SC Adopter, Duplex MM/SC Digital MM and selling the same to the manufacturer of excisable goods and the manufacturers. The appellant was maintaining records in RG 23D Accounts and issuing Central Excise Invoices to enable the customers to avail CENVAT Credit.

The appellant was selling the goods to their customers after calibration tests and upgradation/configuration of the appliances according to the requirements/specifications of the customers. Such process was not required in all cases. Such process is not amounting to manufacture since the same would not change the nomenclature, character and use of such appliances. This process continued during the period from 2001 to February 2009. The appellant was also submitting the returns as a Dealer.

Notably, the appellant was experiencing difficulties in their business as a trader because they had to disclose the name of the supplier and price at which the goods were purchased in their Central Excise Invoices. Disclosure of such information, causing difficulties since the buyers sometimes were purchasing the goods directly from the manufacturers. In order to obviate such difficulties, the appellant had taken Central Excise Registration as a manufacturer and clearing the goods against Central Excise Invoice on payment of Central Excise duty.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031