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

D.C.MANDAL, G.P.AGARWAL, JYOTI BALASUNDARAM
Collector of Central Excise – Appellant
Versus
Dewarance Macneill and Company Ltd. – Respondent


ORDER

D.C. Mandal, Member (T)

1. The issues to be decided by us in this appeal are:

(i) Whether asbestos products, namely,

(a) Sleeve Packing

(b) Hexagonal Packing Ring

(c) Indurated Asbestos

are correctly classifiable under Item 68 or Item 22F of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff; and

(ii) The demand for differential duty under Item 22F and Item 68 can be demanded under Section 11A for a period of six months prior to the issue of the show cause notice dated 20.5.1983.

2. The facts of the case have been stated in the statement of facts given in the memorandum of appeal filed by the Revenue. In short, the same are as follows:

(a) The respondents filed classification list in Form I dated 25.9.1975 to the proper officer for classification of the above mentioned three products under Item 68 of the Central Excise. Tariff. The classification list was approved by the proper officer and the respondents cleared the goods on payment of duty under the said Tariff Item 68. Subsequently, chemical test of the three products revealed predominance of asbestos fibres in the composition of the said goods. The Department issued a show cause notice dated 20.5.1983 proposing to re-classify the goods under Tar

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