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

S.VENKATESAN, S.DUGGAL, K.L.REKHI, S.C.JAIN, B.C.MANDAL
Saurashtra Chemicals – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Customs, Bombay – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
J. Banerjee,Vineet Ohri

ORDER

K.L. Rekhi, Member (T)

1. The common point of dispute involved in these two appeals is the classification of certain machinery parts made of carbon (or graphite) imported by the appellants. The Department assessed the goods under Heading 68.01/16(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, The appellants claim re-assessment under Heading 84.65. It was the common ground of both sides that there was no other competing heading to be considered. Both the appeals were argued before us together and they are being disposed of by this common order.

M/s E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd., appellants in Appeal No. CD/SB/T 888/81-D, had, vide their application dated 12-12-84, prayed to be joined as interveners in these appeals. Notice to attend this hearing was duly sent to the learned advocate of M/s E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. However, when these matters were called, no one was present on their behalf. Since both the appellants and the respondents were present and ready to proceed, and since these appeals have been pending for quite some time and have been adjourned on a number of previous occasions, the Bench decided to proceed with the hearing of these appeals.

2. Before beginning the discussion of this c

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