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

HARISH CHANDER, I.J.RAO
Johnson and Johnson Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Bombay – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
D.B. Engineer,J. Gopinath

ORDER

I.J. Rao, Member (T)

1. The appellants manufacture, among other things, sutures for medical use. For this purpose, they imported aluminium foil of two varieties. One variety was 'aluminium foil laminated to paper and heat-seal coated' and the other variety was 'aluminium foil heat-seal coated'. At the time of importation, the goods were classified under H. 76.03/0(2), C.T.A., and paid duty accordingly. In this appeal before us, there is no dispute about the classification. The appellants, subsequent to importation and payment of duty, claimed refund of a part of the duty paid by them. In respect of 6,600 sheets of aluminium foil, the appellants claimed the benefit of Notification No. 173-Cus/77 and Notification No. 67-Cus/79. In respect of 256 kg. of aluminium foil (only heat-seal coated), they claimed the benefit of Notification No. 173-Cus/77. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim recording, inter alia, as follows :-

"The party has elaborately argued that the contents of aluminium in respect of the foil imported by them. While it is not defined that the purity is of definitely 97% but the point for consideration is whether the foil is laminated and coated or plain. This N

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