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

JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, V.K.AGRAWAL
British Cosmetics – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
R.C. Gupta,T.A. Arunachalam

ORDER

Per Jyoti Balasundaram :

The appellants herein are inter-alia engaged in the manufacture of nail polish, nail strengthener, nail polish remover, cuticle softener, etc. falling under CET Sub-heading 3304.00, and thinner under CET Sub-heading 3814.00, as per classification list submitted by them w.e.f. 1.3.92 and 1.10.92. All these items are manufactured under the trade mark "Gala of London". In the classification list effective from 1.10.92, the assessees claimed the benefit of Nil rate of duty under Notification 230/86 as amended by Notification 89/87. Since the Department was of the view that the thinner was used for dilution of nail polish and removal of nail polish, it was used for cosmetic purposes only and the thinner was a `preparation for use in manicure and pedicure' classifiable under CET Sub-heading 3304.00 and chargeable to duty @ 105% BED + 15% SED, a show cause notice dated 15.12.92 was, therefore, issued proposing classification of thinner under CET Sub-heading 3304.00 proposing recovery of duty during the period April to November 92 (since the appellants had cleared thinner at nil rate of duty during the period in dispute in terms of the above mentioned Notificat

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