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.

Collr. of Cus. Vs. Eastern Stores and Trading Co.

Collr. of Cus. vs Eastern Stores and Trading Co.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 28, 1996
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/10426

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
Customs

Case Summary

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

Customs

Key legal issue
Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collr. of Cus.

Respondent

Eastern Stores and Trading Co.

Legal References

Reported In
(1997)(90)ELT326TriDel

Excerpt

.....stage raise a different ground in appeal. if they had wished to contest the assistant collector's order they ought to have filed an appeal against that order before collector of customs (appeals). in the second place, we find that the collector (appeals) has stated as follows : - "the appellants in their appeal memorandum have stated that they had submitted catalogue and the reasoning with their explanation which are also submitted with appeal papers. the navigation lights in question meet the standard of convention on the international regulations for preventing collisions at sea, 1972 of inter-governmental meritime consultative organisation (imco). they are in various colours to flash signals to ships around and port installations for the sole purpose of safety warnings for prevention of collisions and they are not common ordinary lighting. they would, therefore, definitely fall under heading 85.30 of customs tariff act, 1975" from the collector (appeals) order and it appears that the impugned goods are used to flash signals to ships around and port installations for the sole purpose of safety warnings for prevention of collisions.5. since revenue did not file appeal (sic) their claim at this stage cannot be entertained. in view of this, revenue appeal is rejected and impugned order upheld.

Full Judgment

1. This Revenue appeal is directed against order-in-appeal dated 7-7-1988 of Collector of Customs (Appeals).

2. The respondent imported a consignment of Navigational Lights. The goods were assessed under CTH 8512.20. The respondent filed a refund claim before the Assistant Collector of Customs on the ground that the goods are assessable under CTH 85.30. Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the claim. Collector (Appeals) held that these Navigational Lights are in various colours for flashing signals to ships around and port installations for the sole purpose of safety warnings for prevention of collisions. He therefore, set aside the order and allowed assessment under CTH 85.30. In the Revenue appeal, revenue claimed that the goods are properly classifiable under 8431.80 as Electric sound or visual signalling apparatus.

2. Ld. DR reiterated the Departmental argument submits that these are used in ships and therefore, they are not covered under CTH 85.30 and would be more appropriately classifiable under 8531.80. He however concedes that this claim was not pressed before Collector (Appeals) by them and this is a new claim at this stage.

3 Ld. Advocate for the respondent submits that these Navigational Lights are used for guiding ships for safety purpose to prevent collisions.

4. We have heard both sides and perused the records of the case. In the first place, we find that the claim for classification under 8531.80 was not made before Collector (Appeals). Collector (Appeals) therefore, did not go into this claim and decided only against two completing entries 85.30 and 85.12. Revenue therefore, can not at this stage raise a different ground in appeal. If they had wished to contest the Assistant Collector's order they ought to have filed an appeal against that order before Collector of Customs (Appeals). In the second place, we find that the Collector (Appeals) has stated as follows : - "The appellants in their appeal memorandum have stated that they had submitted catalogue and the reasoning with their explanation which are also submitted with appeal papers. The Navigation Lights in question meet the standard of Convention on the international regulations for preventing collisions at Sea, 1972 of Inter-Governmental Meritime Consultative Organisation (IMCO). They are in various colours to flash signals to ships around and port installations for the sole purpose of safety warnings for prevention of collisions and they are not common ordinary lighting. They would, therefore, definitely fall under Heading 85.30 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975" From the Collector (Appeals) order and it appears that the impugned goods are used to flash signals to ships around and port installations for the sole purpose of safety warnings for prevention of collisions.

5. Since Revenue did not file appeal (sic) their claim at this stage cannot be entertained. In view of this, Revenue appeal is rejected and impugned order upheld.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial