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

1991 Supreme(Kar) 368

K.S.BHATT, N.VENKATACHALA
GURUPRIYA TELE AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE – Respondent


Advocates:
ASHOK HARANAHAFLI, G.CHANDRAKUMAR

SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is a manufacturer of the goods referred by the petitioner as 'telephone dial' for telephone apparatus instrument. The question raised in this writ petition involves the interpretation of Section 11-a of the central excise and salt Act, 1944 ('the act' for short ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner had filed classification list of the goods for approval under Rule 173-b of the central excise rules, 1944 ('the rules' for short ). In the list the petitioner classified the goods in question as falling under chapter 85, sub-heading 8548 of the central excise tariff act of india, 1986. The petitioner had filed a series of such lists. The first one is dated 28th february, 1986 (Annexure-A) lobe effective from ihc said date; second list (Annexure-B) was filed to be effective from 1-3-1986;t third list (annexurc-c) was filed to be effective from 1-4-1986 and the fourth list (Annexure-D) was filed to be effective from 2-4-1986. In all these lists the goods in question was classified under the sub-heading 8548 as electrical parts of machinery or apparatus not specified or included elsewhere in chapter 85, the second respondent approved the said lists by making an






























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