SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1580

K.VENKATASWAMI, S.P.BHARUCHA
Purewal Associates: Sundram Fasteners LTD. , Madras – Appellant
Versus
Collector Of Central Excise: Collector Of Central Excise, Madras – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Venkataswami, J.-In these two appeals a common question, to put it broadly, namely whether the articles manufactured by the respective appellants fall under Tariff Item 52 (Specific Entry) as claimed by the Revenue or under Tariff Item 68 (Residuary Item) of Central Excise Tariff arises for our consideration. We may at once point out that the articles manufactured by the respective appellants are totally different and the decision, therefore, rests upon the kind of articles manufactured by the respective appellants. We, therefore, propose to deal with the facts separately and give out decision thereon.

2. In the first case, i.e. Civil Appeal No. 2800/84 the appellants are manufacturers of watches. In the course of manufacture of watches, the appellants inter alia manufactured four specified articles with which we are concerned, namely, Lid screw, Barrel axle screw, Bridge screw and the Dial key screw. The controversy between the Revenue and the appellants with regard to these four articles was whether these four specified items are classifiable under Item 52 of the Schedule as bolts, nuts and screws or item 68 as all other goods not elsewhere specified .

3. The Assistant














































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top