Back
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
S.S. KANG, V.K. Agrawal, JJ.
Aryan Exporters (P.) Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad -Respondent
Final Order No. 839/99-B1 Appeal No. E/912/93-B1, 839 of 1999, E/912 of 1993
Decided On : 10-08-1999
Per S.S. Kang :
Appellants have filed this Appeal against order in appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals).
2. Heard both sides.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of articles of unhardened Vulcanised Rubber and claimed classification under Chapter heading 40 of the C.E.T.A. The classification was approved. The Revenue Appealed before the Collector of Customs and Excise and vide the impugned order the Collector of Customs and Excise (Appeals) accepted the contention of the Revenue and held that the goods manufactured by the Appellants are classifiable under heading 86.07 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Aggrieved by this order the Appellants filed this appeal. The contention of the appellants is that before the Collector (Appeals) the Appellants pleaded that in the case of M/s. Avadh Rubber the same goods were held to be classifiable under Chapter Heading 4016.19 of the C.E.T.A. But their contention was rejected on the ground that the Revenue had filed appeal before C.E.G.A.T. against the decision in the case of M/s. Avadh Rubber. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants also submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Avadh Rubber vide Final Order No. E/1619/98-B1 dt. 23.10.98 rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue and held that the goods were vulcanised rubber products other than hardened rubber are classifiable under heading 4016.19 of the C.E.T.A. Respectively following the above decisions the impugned order is set aside the appeal is allowed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
