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

S.VENKATESAN, K.L.REKHI, V.T.RAGHAVACHARI
Bombay Switchgears, Mahalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Bombay – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
P.V. Ramakrishnan,K.D. Tayal

ORDER

S. Venkatesan, Senior Vice-President

1. These are two appeals against the combined order dated 3-9-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, in respect of two appeals to him by the appellants. Since both the matters are interconnected and relate to the same issue, they are dealt with in this common order.

2. The short point for consideration in these appeals is whether the "Landholders manufactured by the appellants are covered by Item 61 of the Central Excise Tariff. The description of Item 61 reads as follows :-

"Electric Lighting Fittings, namely :-

Switches, Plugs and Sockets, all kinds ;

Chokes and Starters for Fluorescent Tubes."

It has been held by the Collector (Appeals) that lamp-holders are in the nature of sockets (which are specified in Item 61) and as such they would be covered under that item. As against this, it is the contention of the appellants that lampholders are not known in trade parlance as sockets, and that in accordance with the principle that goods should be classified according to their popular meaning, or the meaning attached by those who deal with them, that is, in the commercial sense, they cannot be regarded as sockets and would

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