Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S B Majmudar, S P Bharucha
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY, APPELLANT
VERSUS
JAYANT DALAL PRIVATE LTD., RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeal No. 159 of 1986, decided on October 29, 1996.
Tariff Classification - Monomer Castings - Central Excise Tariff - Interpretation of Tariff Advice
Fact of the Case:
The Tribunal held that monomer castings produced directly from caprolactum are not classifiable as articles of plastic under Item 15-A (2) of the Central Excise Tariff but are classifiable under the residuary Tariff Item 68. The Tribunal relied on the Tariff Advice issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs.
Finding of the Court:
The appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, with costs, as the Tribunal's decision was in line with the Tariff Advice issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs.
Issues: Interpretation of Tariff Advice, Classification of Monomer Castings under Central Excise Tariff
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the Tariff Advice issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, which stated that monomer castings produced directly from caprolactum are properly classifiable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff.
Final Decision: The appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, with costs.
ORDER
1. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The Tribunal has held that the monomer castings produced by the respondents directly from caprolactum are not classifiable as articles of plastic under Item 15-A (2) of the Central Excise Tariff but are classifiable under the residuary Tariff Item 68. In doing so, the Tribunal has, inter alia, relied upon the Tariff Advice issued on 27-11-1980, by the Central Board of Excise and Customs which states that "the Board is of the opinion that monomer castings produced directly from caprolactum are not classifiable as articles of plastics under Item 15-A (2) of CET and the same are properly classifiable under Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff".
2. Having regard to the Tariff Advice which was issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, it is difficult to see how the Collector could have held otherwise, how the Revenue could have argued otherwise before the Tribunal, and how the Revenue could have filed this appeal.
3. The appeal is dismissed, with costs.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
