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

HARISH CHANDER, D.C.MANDAL
Collector of Central Excise – Appellant
Versus
M. M. Rubber Co. Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
L.C. Chakraborty,R.K. Lukose

ORDER

D.C. Mandal, Member (T)

1. The question to be decided in this appeal is whether the respondents' rubber products bus seats, car seats, scooter seats and motor cycle seats are correctly classifiable under Item 16A(1) of C.E.T. as latex foam sponge or under Item 34-A as motor vehicle parts.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, as stated in the order-in-original No. C.No. V/16A/3/22/80, dated 28.2.81 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore and also stated by the learned Advocate and the learned J.D.R. during the hearing before us, are that the respondents are manufacturers of latex foam sponge articles falling under Central Excise Tariff Item 16A(1). They manufacture rubber products, viz. pillows, cavity sheetings, sofa cushions, chair cushions, cinema seat cushions, scooter seats, motor cycle seats, bus seats, car seats etc. They were filing classification lists from time to time in respect of all the products manufactured by them under Item 16A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff and the same were approved by the proper officer of Central Excise. The Company filed two revised classification lists No. 5/80 and 6/80 both dated 9.4.1980 seeking classification of th

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