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.

Ceat Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Ceat Ltd. vs Collector of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided May 29, 1997
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/11274

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

Ceat Ltd.

Respondent

Collector of Customs

Legal References

Reported In
(1997)(95)ELT117TriDel

Excerpt

1. this appeal arises from order-in-appeal dated 10-1-1991 rejecting the refund claim of the appellants for re-classification of spares for temperature measuring instrument under subheading 9033.00. department has confirmed the classification under sub-heading 9025.90 and have also denied the benefit of exemption under notification 172/89 on the ground that the notification excludes parts or instruments for measuring or checking quantities of heat, etc. the claim for the benefit of notification 69/87 was also rejected on the ground that the said notification had been rescinded by notification 175/89, dated 29-5-1989. in this appeal, the appellants are not challenging the classification adopted by the lower authorities but it is submitted that the parts or instruments are entitled for the benefit of total exemption of auxiliary duty under notification 124/87-cus.3. we have heard ld. dr. the dr pointed out that this notification has been rescinded by notification 175/89, dated 29-5-1989 and these goods have been imported on 3-10-1989 after the rescinding of the notification.4. we have considered the submissions and have perused the notification. the submission made by the ld. dr is correct. the notification claimed by the appellants had been rescinded prior to the import of the goods. therefore, they are not entitled for the benefit of the said notification claimed by them.5. in that view of the matter, there is no merit in the appeal and hence appeal is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal dated 10-1-1991 rejecting the refund claim of the appellants for re-classification of spares for temperature measuring instrument under subheading 9033.00. Department has confirmed the classification under sub-heading 9025.90 and have also denied the benefit of exemption under Notification 172/89 on the ground that the notification excludes parts or instruments for measuring or checking quantities of heat, etc. The claim for the benefit of Notification 69/87 was also rejected on the ground that the said notification had been rescinded by Notification 175/89, dated 29-5-1989. In this appeal, the appellants are not challenging the classification adopted by the lower authorities but it is submitted that the parts or instruments are entitled for the benefit of total exemption of auxiliary duty under Notification 124/87-Cus.

3. We have heard ld. DR. The DR pointed out that this notification has been rescinded by Notification 175/89, dated 29-5-1989 and these goods have been imported on 3-10-1989 after the rescinding of the notification.

4. We have considered the submissions and have perused the notification. The submission made by the ld. DR is correct. The notification claimed by the appellants had been rescinded prior to the import of the goods. Therefore, they are not entitled for the benefit of the said notification claimed by them.

5. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the appeal and hence appeal is rejected.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial