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.

Collector of Cus. Vs. William Good Acre and Sons (India)

Collector of Cus. vs William Good Acre and Sons (India)

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided May 26, 1997
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/11256

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

Collector of Cus.

Respondent

William Good Acre and Sons (India)

Legal References

Reported In
(1997)(94)ELT267TriDel

Excerpt

.....reasons for accepting the classification under heading 8451.40 and also for granting the benefit of the notification in question. in this revenue appeal, the revenue is contending that the correct classification would be only under heading 73.09.3. on a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we are of the considered opinion that the original authorities have not challenged the assessment adopted in the bill of entry at the original stage and therefore, the reclassification sought by the revenue at this stage cannot be accepted.4. as regards the claim made by the importer for classification under sub-heading 8451.40, we notice that the collector (appeals) was required to have considered the hsn notes on this chapter which deals with the classification of vat as well. in view of the collector having not arrived at the finding to accept the classification under sub-heading 8451.40, we therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the commissioner (appeals) for novo adjudication on this limited issue. thus the appeal is allowed by remand. the importers are at liberty to produce such evidence as they deem proper to substantiate their claim. the commissioner (appeals) shall given them a personal hearing before deciding the case.

Full Judgment

1. This is a Revenue appeal contesting the classification in respect of first item in the Bill of Entry No. 157,"* dated 11-5-1990 viz. 5 Nos.

Vat complete without circulation, 1 No. Lab type sample dyeing vat. The same was assessed originally under Tariff sub-heading 7326.90 of the Customs Tariff. The importer had filed refund claim seeking classification under sub-heading 8451.40 read with Notification No.59/87. The original authorities rejected their claim. However, the Collector accepted their appeal. Now, in the impugned order, the learned Collector has discussed as to how the items are not classifiable under Heading 73.26, while giving reasons to reject the classification under Heading 73.26. The learned Collector has not given any reasons for accepting the classification under Heading 8451.40 and also for granting the benefit of the Notification in question. In this Revenue appeal, the Revenue is contending that the correct classification would be only under Heading 73.09.

3. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we are of the considered opinion that the original authorities have not challenged the assessment adopted in the Bill of Entry at the original stage and therefore, the reclassification sought by the Revenue at this stage cannot be accepted.

4. As regards the claim made by the importer for classification under sub-heading 8451.40, we notice that the Collector (Appeals) was required to have considered the HSN Notes on this chapter which deals with the classification of Vat as well. In view of the Collector having not arrived at the finding to accept the classification under sub-heading 8451.40, we therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for novo adjudication on this limited issue. Thus the appeal is allowed by remand. The importers are at liberty to produce such evidence as they deem proper to substantiate their claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) shall given them a personal hearing before deciding the case.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial