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

1988 Supreme(SC) 234

SABYASACHI MUKHARJEE, S.RANGANATHAN
Asian Paints India LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Collector Of Central Excise – Respondent


Advocates:
D.N.Mishra, K.K.VENUGOPAL, R.K.RAM KUMAR, R.K.SHAH, R.NARAIN, S.GANESH RAO

Judgment

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.:- In this appeal under S. 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act), the question involved is whether "Decoplast" manufactured by the Asian Paints India Ltd., the appellant herein, is plastic emulsion paint and, therefore, classifiable under Tariff Item 14(I)(3)(iv) of the First Schedule of the Act as plastic emulsion paint or it should be classifiable under Tariff Item No. 14(I)(5) that is as "paints not otherwise specified."

2. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called the CEGAT), by the impugned Order challenged in this appeal held that Decoplast is plastic emulsion paint. The appellant felt aggrieved thereby. In so holding the Technical Member of the Tribunal observed that in view of its composition, characteristics and uses, Decoplast should be considered as emulsion paint. The Judicial Member of the Tribunal was of the view that the Revenue had not adduced any evidence of rebuttal of the evidence adduced by the appellant as the commercial understanding but the evidence adduced by the appellant was intrinsically untrustworthy. Therefore, in spite of the affidavits and absence of





















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