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

2016 Supreme(SC) 436

DIPAK MISRA, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Hamdard (Waqf) Laboratories – Respondent


JUDGMENT :

Dipak Misra, J.

The respondent, M/s. Hamdard (Waqf) Laboratories, is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of various items including Rooh Afza which is a sweetened non-alcoholic beverage, and the respondent treated it to have been classified under the sub-heading 2201.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Tariff Act'), but the Revenue did not accept the classification claimed by the assessee-respondent on the foundation that it was classifiable under the sub-heading 2107.91 of the Tariff Act.

2. Because of the cavil relating to classification, steps were taken for recovery of the differential duty and keeping in view the demands made, the respondent-manufacturer started paying the duty as demanded by the concerned authority. Be it stated, the initial adjudicator, that is, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, did not accept the stand of the assessee. The said grievance compelled the respondent to prefer an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who negatived the stand of the assessee. Being grieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the Central, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the tribunal

































































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