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

I.J.RAO, D.C.MANDAL, G.P.AGARWAL
National Gold Industries – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K. Jain,C.V. Durghayya

ORDER

G.P. Agarwal, Member (J)

1. Both the captioned appeals are directed against the common impugned Order-in-Appeal and the short point involved in these appeals is -

Whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 35/85-C.E., dated 17-3-1985 as amended by Notification No. 78/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 in respect of 'liquid gold' which according to the appellants should be classified as 'ceramic colour'.

2. Short facts leading to the controversy are that both the appellants are manufacturers of liquid gold'. They are registered as a Small Scale Industry. For the manufacture of liquid gold primary gold is required as raw material which is allotted under quota system on quarterly basis by the Gold (Control) Administrator. The manufacturing as well as the marketing of liquid gold is subject to the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

3. Appellants No. 1 M/s National Gold Industries, Agra filed their Classification list No. 180/86 w.e.f.' 25-10-1986 classifying liquid gold under sub-heading 3207.90 claiming to be ceramic colour and additives (chemicals) under sub-heading 3801.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and claimed the exemption from paymen

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