Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd., ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 330 Bom

                                                     1               cel6.06.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR


                    CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2006


            The Commissioner of Central Excise,
            Central Excise Building, Telangkhedi Road,
            Civil Lines, Nagpur      ......                                  APPELLANT

                                 ...VERSUS...

 1.         M/s. Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd.,
            A-31, MIDC Industrial Area,
            Butibori, Nagpur - 441 122

 2.      The Customs Excise & Service Tax
         Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench
         at Mumbai, Jai Centre, 3rd Floor,
         3rd Floor, 34 P.D."Mello Road,
         Poona Street, Masjid Bunder
         (East), Mumbai - 400 009 ......                                 RESPONDENTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri S.N.Bhattad, counsel for appellant
 None for respondents
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, AND
                                        M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.

th DATE : 11 JANUARY, 2018.

ORAL JUDGMENT (P.C.)

1] The Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate

Tribunal, West Region, Bench at Mumbai, has allowed the

appeal filed by M/s. Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd, on

26.05.2005, holding that "removal means physical shifting of

2 cel6.06.odt

goods" and the "place of removal" may be a factory or other

place or premises of production or manufacture of excisable

goods. It further holds that mere change in ownership and

possession, "removal" of goods cannot be construed and

therefore, there was no reason to order recovery of duty on

excisable goods before the registration was altered.

2] It is not in dispute that the assessee M/s.

Indorama Synthetic (I) Ltd., has not removed the goods from

the place i.e. the godown, but the goods were removed by

M/s. Indorama Textile Limited, which has already paid the

excise duty on removal of such goods.

3] We, therefore, hold that the tribunal has not

committed any error in not considering the provisions of

Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, wherein the term

"place of removal" is defined as a factory or any other place

or premises of production or manufacture of excisable goods.

The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

                                JUDGE                             JUDGE

 Rvjalit