Back
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CALCUTTA
S.K. Bhatnagar, SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JJ.
Collector of Central Excise, Patna -Appellant
Versus
Usha Martin Industries Ltd. -Respondent
Order No. A-749/Cal/98 Appeal No. E-3230/90, 749 of 1998, 3230 of 1990
Decided On : 05-08-1998
Per Smt. Archana Wadhwa :
The dispute in the present appeal filed by the Revenue is as regards the correct classification of Copper Coated Steel Wires manufactured by the respondents. Whereas the respondents' contention is that the said wires are appropriately classifiable under heading 72.13, the department's claim is that the said product has to be classifiable as welding electrodes under heading 83.10.
2. On a classification list filed by the respondents, the Assistant Commissioner while granting the approval of the same under heading 83.10 as against the respondents' claim under chapter 72 relied upon Commissioner's earlier order No. 74-MP/Collr/88 dated 30.11.88 passed by the Commissioner.
3. We have heard ld. JDR, Shri R.K. Roy and Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. advocate. We find that the Collector's adjudication order No. 74-MP/Collr/88 dated 30.11.88 which has been relied upon by the Assistant Collector has been set aside by the Tribunal on an appeal filed by M/s. Usha Martin Industries Ltd., vide their Order No. 132/90B1. Vide the said order, the Tribunal held that the Copper Coated Steel Wires simplicate cannot be classified as electrodes under heading 83.10. We also find that the appeal against the above order of the Tribunal filed by the Revenue has been dismissed by the Supreme Court vide their Order dated 9.5.91. Our attention has also been drawn by the ld. advocate for the respondents to Board's Circular issued vide F.No. 139/13/88-CX.4 dated 7.11.88 which is to the effect that Copper Coated Steel Wires simplicate would be more appropriately covered by the said heading i.e. 7213.90 (prior to 1.3.88) and not by chapter 83. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Collector (Appeals) which holds the goods as appropriately classifiable under Chapter 7217.90 (wrongly typed as 7218.90) after 1.3.88. Accordingly, we reject the Revenue's Appeal.
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
