Collector of Central Excise Vs. Rupali Plastics

Collector of Central Excise vs Rupali Plastics

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Aug 25, 1998

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/14208

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/14208
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Aug 25, 1998
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

Rupali Plastics

Legal References

Reported In: (1999)(112)ELT1038TriDel

Excerpt

1. the issue which arises for consideration in the above appeal filed by the revenue is whether "rigid polyurethane foam" obtained by insitu process by interaction of mixtures of polyols and isocyanates within the cavity between the inner and outer vessels of the plastic articles is excisable commodity falling for classification under cet sub-heading 3926.10 or it is not a marketable commodity and hence is not excisable commodity.3. when the matter was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents. we heard the ld. sdr and perused the records. we have perused the tribunal's order in the case of milton plastics ltd. final order no. 655/90-c, dated 27-6-1990 and the tribunal's order no.684/89-c, dated 21-11-1989 (subsequently upheld by the supreme court by dismissal of the revenue appeals as seen in 1995 (80) e.l.t. a212 and find that the view has been taken that the item in dispute is not marketable and hence is not excisable. following the ratio of the above order we upheld the impugned order of the collector of central excise (appeals) and reject the revenue's appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The issue which arises for consideration in the above appeal filed by the Revenue is whether "Rigid Polyurethane Foam" obtained by insitu process by interaction of mixtures of Polyols and Isocyanates within the cavity between the inner and outer vessels of the plastic articles is excisable commodity falling for classification under CET sub-heading 3926.10 or it is not a marketable commodity and hence is not excisable commodity.

3. When the matter was called none appeared on behalf of the Respondents. We heard the ld. SDR and perused the records. We have perused the Tribunal's order in the case of Milton Plastics Ltd. Final Order No. 655/90-C, dated 27-6-1990 and the Tribunal's Order No.684/89-C, dated 21-11-1989 (subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by dismissal of the Revenue appeals as seen in 1995 (80) E.L.T. A212 and find that the view has been taken that the item in dispute is not marketable and hence is not excisable. Following the ratio of the above order we upheld the impugned order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and reject the Revenue's appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Collector of Central Excise vs Rupali Plastics Same Subject Excise