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

B.B.GUJRAL, G.SANKARAN, S.D.JHA
Mukund Engineering Works – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
D.R. Dave,N.V. Raghavan Iyer

ORDER

1. Passed this sixteenth day of February, 1983.

2. Appellants filed Revision Application before the Government of India which under Sub-section (2) of Section 35P of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act) as amended by the Finance Act, 1980 (No. 2 of 1980) stands transferred to the Tribunal for disposal, as if it were an appeal presented before it.

3. Appellants are manufacturers of the goods called "Jockey Pulley" and are holding Central Excise Licence for manufacturing the same. The Appellants submitted the Classification Lists from time to time and whenever required under Rule 173-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter called Rules) which were approved by the competent authority and the goods were classified under Tariff Item No. 68. The goods were also assessed accordingly on their monthly Return in Form RT-12 from time to time. It appears that as per Tariff Advice No. 14 of 1981, dated 6-2-81 issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, a clarification was made regarding the applicability of Tariff Item No. 49 ("Rolling Bearings") to "Top Rollers, centering sleeve inserts and bearing with extrude shape".

The Superintendent of Central

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