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 Central Excise Vs. Refair Industries

Collector of Central Excise vs Refair Industries

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Apr 20, 1998
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/13292

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
Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Refair Industries

Legal References

Reported In
(1998)(103)ELT43TriDel

Excerpt

.....small scale manufacturers. accordingly we have heard the ld. jdr shri s. nunthuk, jdr, for the revenue.2 question involved in the present matters is regarding the classification of bolts, screws, shaft, nuts, etc. for electrical control panels manufactured by the respondents herein on specific drawings and designs supplied by the customers. the question here is whether they have to be classified as parts of electrical machinery under chapter 85 as contended by the respondents or whether it be classified under tariff heading 7318.00 as contended by the revenue.the lower appellate authority in the impugned order has held regarding the aforesaid products that their exact functions should be ascertained, in case these are only used as fasteners without any other specialised application, they would qualify for classification under chapter sub-heading 7318.00 if these items perform specialised functions with function of fasteners being only incidental these are classifiable under parts and equipments of machinery for which these are obtained. in view of the said observations the matter was remanded to the original authority for de novo proceedings and classification be determined in accordance with the foregoing observataions. hence these appeals by the revenue.3. ld. jdr shri nunthuk, for the revenue urges that the lower appellate authority has committed an error of law inasmuch as note 2(a) of section xv of ceta, 1985 states inter alia that throughout the schedule the subject "parts of general use" means articles under heading 73.18 among articles of other headings, and similar articles of base metal.now, heading no. 73.18 specifically includes screws, bolts and nuts and similar articles of iron and steel. it is, therefore, apparent, submits the ld. jdr, that the articles under consideration here in the present cases fall under tariff heading 73.18 by virtue of statutory note 2(a) of section xv. he, therefore, submits that the impugned order is not correct in law and.....

Full Judgment

1. Matters called. None for the respondents but they have stated that the case may be decided on merits since they are unable to appear being small scale manufacturers. Accordingly we have heard the ld. JDR Shri S. Nunthuk, JDR, for the Revenue.

2 Question involved in the present matters is regarding the classification of bolts, screws, shaft, nuts, etc. for electrical control panels manufactured by the respondents herein on specific drawings and designs supplied by the customers. The question here is whether they have to be classified as parts of electrical machinery under Chapter 85 as contended by the respondents or whether it be classified under Tariff Heading 7318.00 as contended by the Revenue.

The lower appellate authority in the impugned order has held regarding the aforesaid products that their exact functions should be ascertained, in case these are only used as fasteners without any other specialised application, they would qualify for classification under Chapter sub-heading 7318.00 If these items perform specialised functions with function of fasteners being only incidental these are classifiable under parts and equipments of machinery for which these are obtained. In view of the said observations the matter was remanded to the original authority for de novo proceedings and classification be determined in accordance with the foregoing observataions. Hence these appeals by the Revenue.

3. Ld. JDR Shri Nunthuk, for the Revenue urges that the lower appellate authority has committed an error of law inasmuch as Note 2(a) of Section XV of CETA, 1985 states inter alia that throughout the Schedule the subject "parts of general use" means articles under Heading 73.18 among articles of other headings, and similar articles of base metal.

Now, Heading No. 73.18 specifically includes screws, bolts and nuts and similar articles of iron and steel. It is, therefore, apparent, submits the ld. JDR, that the articles under consideration here in the present cases fall under Tariff Heading 73.18 by virtue of statutory Note 2(a) of Section XV. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is not correct in law and therefore should be set aside.

4. We are in agreement with the submissions of the ld. JDR in view of the specific Note 2(a) of Section XV of Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Consequently these are to be classified under Tariff Heading 7318.10 and we set aside the impugned order and restore the order-in-original.

5. Before parting with this order we may also mention that Note l(g) of Section XVI specifically excludes "parts of general use" as mentioned in Note 2 of Section XV from the scope of Section XVI under which Chapter 85 falls. Therefore, the classification contended by the respondents does not hold good. Appeals disposed of in the above terms.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial