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

S.L.PEERAN, V.K.ASHTANA
Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore – Appellant
Versus
BPL Sanyo Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Aruna N. Gupta,G. Sampath

ORDER

Per V.K. Ashtana :

This is a Revenue appeal against the order in Appeal No. 68/89 (B) dated 21.3.89 wherein video decks manufactured by the current respondents have been held classifiable under sub heading 8522 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Revenue appeal is on the ground that the said video decks should be classified under sub-heading 8521.00 inasmuch as they have already acquired all the essential characteristics of V.C.R. in terms of Rule 2 (a) of the Rules of interpretation of the said Act.

2. Heard Smt. Aruna N. Gupta, learned JDR for the Revenue and Shri G. Sampath, learned Counsel for the respondents.

3. Learned JDR submits that merely because a few items or accessories have not been added to the video deck it does not mean it has not acquired the essential characteristics of VCR. She reiterates the grounds of appeal.

4. Learned Counsel referred to the technical note prepared by one NP Ramesh, Senior Manager, R&D and also the two photographs. He submits that the photograph labelled as exhibit I shows the condition in which the said video deck is cleared from the factory. The second photo which is labelled as exhibit II shows additional items which are required to be

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