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

2003 Supreme(SC) 1280

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE BARODA – Appellant
Versus
L. M. P. PRECISION ENGG. CO. LTD. – Respondent


( 1 ) A question was raised before the Tribunal whether water-well drilling rigs mounted on motor vehicle chassis fall under Tariff Heading 84. 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, as claimed by the respondent assessee, or under Tariff Heading 87. 05 as upheld by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal upheld the respondents contention and set aside the order of the adjudicating authority. However, the Tribunal confirmed the claim of the appellant limited to a particular removal in respect of which separate invoices had been submitted by the respondent. The decision of the Tribunal on the main issue has been impugned before us by the Revenue. The respondent has filed a separate appeal being CA No. 178 of 1997 in respect of the latter finding limited to the demand in respect of the particular quantity.

( 2 ) THE period in respect of which the demand has been raised is 1/3/1986 to 29/2/1988. During this period the respondent assessee had cleared water-well drilling rigs mounted on chassis (hereinafter referred to as "the goods") after classifying the same under Tariff Heading 84. 30. On 1/3/1988, a notification was issued by the Central Government under Rule 8 of the Central Excise
























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