Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Cimmco Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Cimmco Ltd. vs Collector of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 19, 1996
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/10379

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cimmco Ltd.

Respondent

Collector of Customs

Legal References

Reported In
(1997)(90)ELT304TriDel

Excerpt

1. this appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal no. 879/89-bch, dated 19-5-1989 passed by collector (appeals), bombay.2. the short question that falls for determination in this appeal is whether flow meter accessories are eligible for exemption under notification no. 155/86-cus. the appellants have contended that flow meters are parts of coal dust flow i.e. mass measuring system of cement plant and therefore would merit assessment under chapter 84.74 and therefore would be eligible to exemption under notification no. 155/86 as this tariff item is mentioned in the notification. the department, however, has held that this meter as classifiable under heading 90.31 and rejected their claim since the notification no. 155/86-cus.includes only certain items falling under chapter 84 and 85.3. arguing for the appellants the ld. counsel reiterates the claim made in the appeal but on a specific question from the bench fairly concedes the department's point of view.5. we do not see much merit in the appeal. flow meters obviously fall under only chapter no. 90 and in fact we find that hon'ble apex court in the case of moorco (india) ltd. v. c.c., madras - 1994 (74) e.l.t. 5 (s.c.) has also upheld their classification only in this chapter. since the table appended to notification no. 155/86 does not include chapter 90 for the purpose of concession this notification is obviously not applicable to the appellants. in the result we reject the appeal and uphold the impugned order.

Full Judgment

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 879/89-BCH, dated 19-5-1989 passed by Collector (Appeals), Bombay.

2. The short question that falls for determination in this appeal is whether Flow Meter accessories are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 155/86-Cus. The Appellants have contended that flow meters are parts of coal dust flow i.e. Mass Measuring System of Cement Plant and therefore would merit assessment under Chapter 84.74 and therefore would be eligible to exemption under Notification No. 155/86 as this tariff item is mentioned in the notification. The department, however, has held that this meter as classifiable under Heading 90.31 and rejected their claim since the Notification No. 155/86-Cus.

includes only certain items falling under Chapter 84 and 85.

3. Arguing for the appellants the ld. Counsel reiterates the claim made in the appeal but on a specific question from the Bench fairly concedes the department's point of view.

5. We do not see much merit in the appeal. Flow meters obviously fall under only Chapter No. 90 and in fact we find that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Moorco (India) Ltd. v. C.C., Madras - 1994 (74) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) has also upheld their classification only in this chapter. Since the table appended to Notification No. 155/86 does not include Chapter 90 for the purpose of concession this notification is obviously not applicable to the appellants. In the result we reject the appeal and uphold the impugned order.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial