Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

M/S. TATA IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PATNA

Decided
5 May 2004
Judges listed
S. RAJENDRA BABU (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 106 · 2004 INSC 337

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

RAJENDRA BABU, CJ. : The question raised in this appeal is whether Electric Overhead Travelling (EOT) Cranes are liable to excise duty or not. In the order under appeal, the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the Revenue's contention that the activity of the appellant in the manufacture and clearance of the complete crane in semi-knocked down condition or is manufacture of crane parts had already been decided by the Patna High Court in the appellant's case having notified that the decision of the Patna High Court is still a good law not having been interfered by · this Court till date. And therefore held that the goods in question to the complete cranes falling under Heading 81.26. However, on the question oflimitation, the Tribunal held in favour of the appellant. On 9th February, 2000, this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1466 of 1998 and 102 of 1999 allowed the appeals of Appellants against the decision of the Patna High Court, set aside the orders of the respondents as well as of the High Court and held that no excise duty is payable on the E.O.T. cranes as assembled. In the result, we set aside this part of the order made by the Tribunal and remit the matter to it for fresh examination in the light of the order of this Court.

p. 107, margin C

Insofar as the question oflimitation and other aspects are concerned, we do not interfere with the order made by the Tribunal. Only to the extent indicated above, the order of the Tribunal is set aside.

p. 107, margin F

Appeal allowed accordingly. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 107, margin G