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

JYOTI BALASUNDRAM, G.R.SHARMA
Madhusudan Ceramics – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Uday Joshi,Satnam Singh

ORDER

Per G.R. Sharma :

The issue for determination in this appeal is whether the goods described as Ceramic wares for laboratory (Laboratory Sinks), in their classification list effective from 1.3.87 were classifiable under chapter heading 69.07 as claimed by the assessees or under chapter heading 69.08 as held by the Department.

2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants had been declaring the products before 1.3.87 as Ceramic Sinks under chapter heading 69.08. In the Budget of 1987-88, the Government of India changed the rate of duty in as much as on the items classifiable under chapter heading 69.07, the rate of duty was fixed 30% Ad Valorem, whereas on the goods classifiable under chapter heading 69.08, the rate of duty was fixed as 40% Ad Valorem. When the Government of India changed the rate of duty in the Budget of 1987-88, the appellants filed the classification list claiming that their product was Ceramic Wares for Laboratory classifiable under chapter heading 69.07 attracting the rate of duty 30% Ad Valorem. They submitted that it was their mistake that they were classifying the goods under chapter heading 69.08.

3. Shri Uday Joshi, ld. Counsel appeared

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