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

2004 Supreme(SC) 184

Metlex (I) Pvt. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI – Respondent


Judgment

( 1 ) THESE appeals are against the orders of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) dated 19th December, 1997 and 4th June, 1998. They are being disposed of by this common judgment as except for the period under consideration the law points are the same.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are as follows : in Civil Appeal Nos. 3224-3225 of 1998 the period under consideration is 1-3-1988 to 30-9-1989 and 1-10-1989 to January, 1990. In Civil Appeal No. 5176 of 1998 the period under consideration is 1987-88 and 1988-89. In civil Appeal No. 5176 of 1998, the appellant is also urging that during that period they were doing job work for one M/s. Flex Laminators and are thus not liable to pay excise. In the view we are taking it is unnecessary to deal with this aspect.

( 3 ) THE appellants filed a classification list showing the item as falling under Tariff items 3920. 36 and 3920. 38. The appellants claimed benefit of notification No. CE 53/88 dated 1st March, 1988. The appellants were issued Show Cause Notices on the basis that their goods did not fall under item 35 of the Notification but that they fell under Item 32. 3 of the Notification.

( 4 ) IN reply to





















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