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

1993 Supreme(Cal) 385

RUMA PAL
SHALIMAR PAINTS LTD – Appellant
Versus
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE – Respondent


RUMA PAL, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner manufactures paints, varnishes and other allied products. Prior to 1986, for the purpose of Central Excise the goods produced by the petitioner were classified under Tariff Item No. 14 of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Tariff Item No. 14 in so far as it is relevant read :"14. Pigments, colours, paints, enamels, varnishes, blacks and cellulose lacquers -II. Varnishes and blacks - (i) Varnishes (ii) Bituminous and Coal-tar blacks. . . "

( 2 ) SUBSEQUENT to the introduction of Central Excise Tax Tariff Act, 1985 which came into force from 28th February 1986, the petitioner filed classification lists contending that the products manufactured by the petitioner were "cut back bitumen", and as such classifiable under Tariff Heading No. 27. 15 of the Schedule to the 1985 Act.

( 3 ) BEFORE the classification list was accepted by the Central Excise Authorities, samples were drawn from the petitioner's products. The samples were submitted to the Chemical Examiner, Customs House, Calcutta. The Chemical Examiner submitted 4 (four) test Memos in respect of four of the petitioner's products. The Test Memos read as follows :" (1) T

































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