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

V.K.AGRAWAL, P.G.CHACKO
Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad – Appellant
Versus
Rungta Irregation Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Vikas Kumar,Kamaljeet Singh

ORDER

Per P.G. Chacko : The issue in this case pertains to classification of the HDPE pipes manufactured by the respondents. When the respondents filed a revised classification declaration with the department under Rule 173B (of the Central Excise Rules, 1944) claiming classification of their product (HDPE pipes) as a part of Sprinkler Irrigation System under Sub-heading 8424.91 (rate of duty "Nil") of the CETA Schedule, the department opposed the claim and insisted on continuance of the earlier classification under SH 3917.00 (rate of duty 16%). The original authority held the classification under SH 3917.00 and demanded duty on the clearances for the period July 2001 - March 2002. It also imposed a penalty on the party. The decision of the original authority was set aside by the first appellate authority in the assessee's appeal. The appellate authority classified the goods under SH 8424.91 as claimed by the assessee, and vacated the duty demand and penalty. Hence this appeal of the Revenue.

2. Heard SDR for the appellant and counsel for the respondents. Ld. DR reiterated the ground raised in the appeal memo. He particularly submitted that the plastic pipes/tubes manufactured and c

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