The single-judge bench dismissed the appellant's appeal in limine, holding that the Tribunal's finding regarding capital goods definition left no substantial question of law for adjudication.
Appeal dismissed in limine without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.101 OF 2004
Commissioner of Central Excise ..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.Empire Industries ..Respondent.
Mr.S.S.Pakale with Y.R. Mishra i/b. Dr.T.C.Kaushik
for appellant.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2005.
P.C. :-
. Heard learned counsel for the Revenue. The
Tribunal recorded its finding as under :-
" Heard both sides and perused the records.
It is apparent that the impugned goods are used as
parts of the machine, as explained above. In the
definition of capital goods contained in Rule 57Q,
parts of machinery falling in whatever heading are
included as capital goods. The machinery in which
the impugned goods have been used are not stated
to be the ineligible ones. Hence the parts
thereof whatever be their nature, whether
significant, durable or needing frequent
replacements, are all covered by the scope of the
definition of ‘parts’. "
. Considering the aforesaid finding, no
substantial question of law is involved. Appeal is
dismissed in limine with no order with no order as to
costs.
(V.C. DAGA, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
Commissioner of Central Excise
M/s. Empire Industries
V.C. DAGA
J.P. DEVA DHAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court