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

G.SANKARAN, M.SANTHANAM, K.PRAKASH ANAND
Bakelite Hylam Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
J.R. Gagrat, Sushma Manchanda,Vijay Zutshi

ORDER

G. Sankaran, Member (T)

1. The captioned appeal was initially filed before the Central Government as a revision application which, Under Section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.

2. The issue falling for determination in the present appeal is the correct classification under the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (CET, for short) of rigid plastic laminated sheets and boards manufactured by the appellants under the trade names "Hylam" industrial laminates and "Hyglas" electrical grade sheets in various thicknesses, sizes and colours. The appellants claimed classification of the goods under the residual heading- item 68, CET-which was rejected by the lower authorities who classified them as "articles of plastics" under item 15A(2), CET.

3. Item No. 15A, CET, as it stood at the material time, read as follows :

"15A. Artificial or synthetic resins and plastic materials and cellulose esters and ethers, and articles thereof:-

(1) The following artificial or synthetic resins and plastic materials, and cellulose esters and ethers, in any form, wheth

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