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

P.C.JAIN, JYOTI BALASUNDARAM
Shivaji Works Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A. Hidayatullah, M.P. Baxi, S. Kher,M.S. Arora

ORDER

P.C. Jain, Member (T)

1. A common order is being passed because issues involved are common.

2. Facts relating to the appeals of M/s. Shivaji Works Ltd. are as follows :-

2.1 M/s. Shivaji Works Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the first appellants) are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel castings required for the manufacture of parts of machines falling under Chapters 84 to 87 of the CETA 1985. During the period from 23-6-1988 to 3-11-1988 the appellant cleared the iron and steel castings claiming their product to be classified under Heading No. 7325.10 to 7325.90 of the CETA 1985 and were charged to duty accordingly in terms of Notification No. 223/88 dated 23-6-1988. Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-II, however, observed that the said castings manufactured by the appellant were tailor-made castings required for machines falling under Chapters 84 to 87 and are manufactured as per specific instructions and drawings supplied by the customers. He also observed that these castings could be used only by the customer on whose behalf the said castings had been manufactured. It was, therefore, felt that the castings had the essential character of the machine parts for whi

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