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

1993 Supreme(SC) 585

KULDIP SINGH, P.B.SAWANT
Collector Of Central Excise – Appellant
Versus
Fusebase Eltoto LTD. – Respondent


Advocates:
A.S.Madan, D.S.Mahra, KAILASH VASUDEV, P.PARMESHVARAN, Rajesh Mehta, V.BALACHANDRAN, V.LAKSHMI KUMARAN

JUDGMENT

The question for consideration is whether "Projection Television sets" manufactured by the respondent are the same as the "Broadcast Television receiver sets" for the purpose of earning exemption under the Central Excise laws. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) answered the question in the negative and against the respondent. On further appeal by the respondent, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) reversed the findings of the authorities below by its order dated March 5, 1990 and came to the conclusion that the "Projection Television Sets" are the same as "Broadcast Television receiver sets" as such the respondent was entitled to the exemption claimed. This appeal by the Central Excise Department through the Collector of Central Excise Meerut is against the order of the Tribunal.

2. The Projection Television sets manufactured by the respondent-company are sold under the brand names Hotline Projectavision 203, Hotline Projectavision 303, Hotline Projectavision 503 and Hotline Projectavision 222. A single set consists of a "projectionunit" and a screen. Different models have screens of dif















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