Back
2003 Supreme(SC) 926
(2009) 16 Supreme Court Cases ,561
RUMA PAL AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.
SIDHARATH PHARMACEUTICALS – Appellant
Versus
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD – Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 3240 of 1996
Decided on : September 18, 2003
Headnote:Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, Section 35-L and Schedule I Item 30A (as it stood prior to its amendment) - Central Excise Tariff, Item 68 or 1-B - Excise and Customs – Product in questions – Clasification of - Product 'viprot' was classifiable for the year 1983-84 under unamended Central Excise Act, 1944 under Tariff Item 1-B or Tariff Item 68 - Assessing Officer, Collector of Central Excise as well as the Tribunal came to a conclusion after weighing the material on record that the item was properly classified under Tariff Item 1-B - This is essentially a question of fact – Concurrent finding of authorities below - Interference – Not called for.
[Para ]
ORDER
1. The dispute in this case is whether the appellant's product "viprot" was classifiable for the year 1983-1984 under the unamended Central Excise Act, 1944 under Tariff Item I-B or Tariff Item 68.
2. It is not in dispute that if the item was classifiable under Tariff Item 68, the appellant would not be liable to pay any duty by virtue of the quantum of the turnover. The assessing officer, the Collector of Central Excise as well as the Tribunal have come to a conclusion after weighing the material on record that the item was properly classifiable under Tariff Item I-B. This is essentially a question of fact and the view taken appears to be a reasonable one.
3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
