CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Harish Chander, I.J. Rao, K. Prakash Anand, JJ.
Collector of Central Excise -Appellant
Versus
Subros Ltd. -Respondent
Order Nos. 66-71/89-B1 Appeal F. No. E/216/88 Suppl. Appeal Nos. E/1055 to 1059/88-B Misc. Nos. 317 & 322/88-B1, 66-71 of 1989, E/216 of 1988, E/1055 to 1059 of 1988, 317 of 1988, 322 of 1988
Decided On : 07-06-1989
Harish Chander, Member (J)
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, has filed six appeals being aggrieved from a consolidated order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) disposing of three appeals. The Collector of Central Excise had filed originally one appeal which is being registered with the Registry as appeal No. E/216/88-B. The said appeal was received in the Registry on 2nd February, 1988. Thereafter, five more supplementary appeals were filed with a covering letter which were received in the Registry on 30th March, 1988. In the covering letter the appellant has mentioned the details of the orders against which five supplementary appeals have been filed. The same are reproduced below :-
"(1) Order-in-Original C.No.V(17)VC/9019/475/86/2589 dated 3-6-1987 modifying C/L No. 161/R-III/Noida/87 dated nil effective 8-5-1987.
(2) Order-in-Original C.No.V(30)171-Misc/Subros/87/4122-26 dated 18-8-1987 confirming the demand of Rs. 94,46,804.51 for the period September, 1986 to May, 1987.
(3) Order-in-Original C.No.V(30)171-Misc/Subros/87/4118-21 dated 18-8- 1987 modifying the C/L No. 207/86 effective 22-6-1988.
(4) Order for approval of C/L No. 207/86 effective 22-6-1986.
(5) Order for approval of C/L No. 103/87 effective 22-6-1986."
Vide Order Nos. 322 to 327/88-B1 dated 19-7-1988 the Bench had condoned the delay in the filing of the supplementary appeals. Since the above captioned appeals emerge from a consolidated order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), the same are disposed of by this consolidated order.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Subros Ltd., C-51, Phase II, NOIDA (U.P.) had filed two classification lists No. 103 and 207 both effective from 22nd June, 1986. In the classification list No. 103 the relevant items were gas compressors for air-conditioning system in car and light commercial vehicles and air-conditioning parts and accessories for car/light commercial vehicles. The classification of the first item viz. gas compressor was approved under sub-heading 8414.10 and that of the second item viz. air-conditioning parts and accessories was under sub-heading 8415. The rate of duty for the first item was Rs. 4000.00 in terms of Serial No. 1 of the table to the Notification No. 166/86, dated 1-3-1986. The rate of duty approved for the second item was 40% ad valorem in terms of Serial No. 6 of the Notification No. 166/86, dated 1st March, 1986, as referred to above. In the second classification list No. 207, the items were the same. However, against the first item viz. gas compressor description given was gas compressor for air-conditioning kit for cars and light commercial vehicles of capacity not exceeding 1.5 tonnes. There was no change in the description of the second item. The classification of both the items was approved respectively under sub-headings 8414.10 and 8415.00 and the rate of duty was the same as in the case of classification list No. 103.
3. Thereafter, the Assistant Collector filed an application under Section 35-E(4) against the approval of the classification list which was treated as an appeal by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and subsequently another classification list No. 161/R-III/Noida/87 was filed. In this classification list there were two items which were submitted for the approval of the classification. The first item was the automotive gas compressor with magnetic clutch 80 cc capacity, and the second item was parts and accessories of air-conditioner for cars and light commercial vehicles. The Asstt. Collector classified the first item viz. automotive gas compressor with Magnetic clutch under sub-heading 8415.00. The classification list was effective from 8-5-1987. The rate of duty quoted by the respondent was Rs. 2500.00 per piece in terms of Notification No. 135/87-C.E., dated 8-5-1987, which was raised to Rs. 8000.00 per piece. The remarks given on the classification list were "classification modified" in terms of Rule 173B(5) under
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.