COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. LOHIA STARLINGER LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order -in -Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondents made export of two machines, namely, Tape Extrusion Line Model E -90B with 180 Precison Cross Winders and Circular Weaving Machine LSL 4 (SPL) and claimed the benefit under DEPB Scheme. A SCN was issued to the respondents on the ground that in fact a Tabular fabric manufacturing plant was exported by the respondent and this plant is not entitled for draw back under the DEPB Scheme.

(3.) The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order after considering the evidence on record and after taking into consideration the contract between the respondents and their customers held that both the machines arc different and distinct in nature and are classifiable under different chapter headings, therefore, it is not complete tabular fabric manufacturing plant. The contention of the Revenue is that it is complete tabular fabric manufacturing plant and composite contract was entered into between the respondents and their customer specifying the composite price.