Thermax Babcock and Wilcox Ltd. - Appellant @HASH Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 8 May 2015 Civil Appeal Nos. 3042-3043 of 2005. (2015) 320 ELT 32 : (2015) 14 SCC 760
Bench: Division Bench
Result Published

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Civil Appeal Nos. 3042-3043 of 2005.

Hon'ble Bench

A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.

Advocates

S/Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, M.P. Devanath, Vivek Sharma, Ms. L. Charanaya, Aditya Bhattacharya, R. Ramachandran, Hemant Bajaj, Anandh K. and Rajesh Kumar, Advocates, for the Appellant; S/Shri K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Advocate, Rupesh Kumar, Ms. Shweta Garg, Ms. Bharathi Raju, Deepak, B. Krishna Prasad, R. Satish Kumar, M. Soundarasarankumar, Prateek Gupta and Naresh Kumar, Advocate, for the Respondent

Final Decision

Allowed

Judgement Text

Translate:

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

1. There were two issues before the Tribunal. First pertains to the classification of pressure and non-pressure parts cleared from the factory. This

issue has been decided in favour of the assesse/appellant and the Department has not filed any appeal against the same.

2. Second issue was in respect of value of bought out items viz, whether the value thereof should be added to the assessable value of the boilers. It

is contended that the assessee had removed boilers in unassembled form at the factory site according to the excise authorities.

3. The Tribunal has decided this issue in favour of the Revenue accepting its plea that without these parts a boiler cannot function.

4. It is this part of the Tribunal�s order which is assailed in the present appeal.

5. At the outset Mr. Lakshmikumar, learned counsel pointed out that though in the show cause notice such bought out parts were mentioned in

annexure D thereto, while computing the demands which were raised in the show cause notice, no excise is demanded on the above item. If that be

so, there is no need to go into the issue raised by the appellant in this appeal as the decision of this appeal either way would not affect the appellant

if the duty itself is not demanded thereupon.

6. Thus, while dismissing this appeal, we clarify that if there was no such amount demanded in the show cause notice, the direction contained in

para 10 and 11(b) of the impugned order of the Tribunal to the jurisdictional officer to determine and recover the duty from the appellant shall have

to go. However, it is only if the Officer is satisfied that no demand was made in respect of aforesaid items while computing the demand.

7. The appeals are dismissed in the above terms.

From The Blog
Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India (1983)
Oct
17
2025

Landmark Judgements

Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India (1983)
Read More
A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak and Another (1988)
Oct
17
2025

Landmark Judgements

A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak and Another (1988)
Read More