Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Samitan Electro Powers (P) Ltd.

Collector of C. Ex. vs Samitan Electro Powers (P) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 19, 1997

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/10826

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/10826
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Feb 19, 1997
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

Collector of C. Ex.

Respondent

Samitan Electro Powers (P) Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (1998)(98)ELT650TriDel

Excerpt

.....ranchi and allowed the appeal of the appellants m/s.samitan electro powers (p) ltd. (respondents before us).2. the respondents are not present. the notice for today's hearing had been received back undelivered from the postal authorities with the remarks "left" 3. we have heard shri m. jayaraman, jdr, for the appellant/revenue. we have gone through the facts on record and the case law relied upon by the learned collector of central excise (appeals) while allowing the appeal of the appellants before him (respondents before us).4. we find that the matter is covered by the tribunal's decision in the case of devidayal non-ferrous (india) pvt. ltd. v. collector of central excise, bombay - 1984 (16) e.l.t. 537 (tribunal). the tribunal had followed the bombay high court decision in the case of shakti insulated wires (p) ltd. v. union of india - 1982 (10) e.l.t. 10.5. we also find that the supreme court had dismissed the civil appeal no. 3309 of 1990 filed by the collector of central excise, calcutta, against the cegat order no. 202/89-b1, dated 30-11-1989 (binani commercial corporation v. collector of central excise), as reported at page a41 and a42 of volume 89, part-i, elt of 1st january, 1997. the appellate tribunal in its order in question following their own earlier order no. 176/87-b, dated 23-3-1987 in the case of binani commercial corporation, had held that paper insulated aluminium wires were not further classifiable under item no. 68 of the erstwhile central excise tariff. in that order, the cegat had followed the bombay high court decision in the case of shakti insulated wires - 1982 (10) e.l.t. 10 (bombay), holding that insulated aluminium strips were not liable to duty under item no. 68 of the erstwhile central excise tariff.6. in view of the settled position, we do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the revenue and the same is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 6-11-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta, the matter relates to the classification of the paper covered (insulated) copper and aluminium strips. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ranchi, who had adjudicated the matter had held that the paper covered (insulated) copper and aluminium strips were classifiable under Item No. 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta, following the Bombay High Court decision in the case of Shakti Insulated Wires (P) Ltd. v. Union of India - 1982 (10) E.L.T. 10, and the Tribunal's decision in the case of Devidayal Non-Ferrous (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay - 1984 (16) E.L.T. 537 (Tribunal), had set aside the order passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Ranchi and allowed the appeal of the appellants M/s.

Samitan Electro Powers (P) Ltd. (respondents before us).

2. The respondents are not present. The notice for today's hearing had been received back undelivered from the postal authorities with the remarks "LEFT" 3. We have heard Shri M. Jayaraman, JDR, for the appellant/Revenue. We have gone through the facts on record and the case law relied upon by the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) while allowing the appeal of the appellants before him (respondents before us).

4. We find that the matter is covered by the Tribunal's decision in the case of Devidayal Non-Ferrous (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay - 1984 (16) E.L.T. 537 (Tribunal). The Tribunal had followed the Bombay High Court decision in the case of Shakti Insulated Wires (P) Ltd. v. Union of India - 1982 (10) E.L.T. 10.

5. We also find that the Supreme Court had dismissed the Civil Appeal No. 3309 of 1990 filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, against the CEGAT Order No. 202/89-B1, dated 30-11-1989 (Binani Commercial Corporation v. Collector of Central Excise), as reported at page A41 and A42 of Volume 89, Part-I, ELT of 1st January, 1997. The Appellate Tribunal in its order in question following their own earlier Order No. 176/87-B, dated 23-3-1987 in the case of Binani Commercial Corporation, had held that paper insulated aluminium wires were not further classifiable under Item No. 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. In that order, the CEGAT had followed the Bombay High Court decision in the case of Shakti Insulated Wires - 1982 (10) E.L.T. 10 (Bombay), holding that insulated aluminium strips were not liable to duty under Item No. 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.

6. In view of the settled position, we do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Collector of C. Ex. vs Samitan Electro Powers (P) Ltd. Same Subject Land Acquisition