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

2006 Supreme(SC) 578

ASHOK BHAN, A.R.LAKSHMANAN
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Carrier Aircon LTD. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Bhan, J. — This judgment shall dispose off Civil Appeal Nos. 3914 of 2001, 8418- 8419 of 2001, 4715-4717 of 2002 and 2898 of 2005 by a common order as the point involved in all these appeals is the same.

2. Facts are taken from Civil Appeal No.3914 of 2001. The point which calls for consideration is as to:

"Whether the chillers manufactured by M/s. Carrier Aircon Limited (respondent herein) are classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.18 of the Schedule to the Central Tariff Act (for short "the Act") as claimed by them or under Chapter Heading 84.15 as contended by the Revenue?"

3. M/s. Carrier Aircon Limited (respondent herein) is engaged in the manufacture of chillers besides other goods i.e. room air-conditioners, air handling units, gas compressors, radiators for central heating and parts of aforesaid goods. Respondent classified the chillers manufactured by it as refrigerating and freezing equipments under sub-heading No.8418.10 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short the "Tariff Act"). The classification list was accepted by the Department.

4. Commissioner of Central Excise, Central Excise Commissionarate, Delhi-III, issued a show cause


































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