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 C. Ex. Vs. Engineers Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Collector of C. Ex. vs Engineers Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 24, 1998
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/14721

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
MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of C. Ex.

Respondent

Engineers Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(1999)(105)ELT376TriDel

Excerpt

1. this appeal from the revenue was argued by shri nunthuk, id. dr. in terms of earlier order of the bench, the intimation had been served.the respondents were, however, not present. the assessees manufactured switches. effecting certain clearances under the benefit of notification 160/86, dated 1-3-1986. vide show cause notice dated 4-3-1987, it was alleged that the benefit of the notification was not available and on this count, differential duty was chargeable. the assistant collector observed that the notification excludes from its coverage switches, plugs, sockets etc. the goods cleared being the same, the benefit was not available. the assessees then filed an appeal. the collector (appeals) observed that such products were earlier classified under t.i. 61. he held that the department themselves had clarified by certain trade notices that under t.i. 61, only those switches would fall which were directly proximate to the lighting points and those which were not so placed, would fall under the residual classification under t.i. 68. he observed that the wording of the contested notification and of the old tariff item were para meteria and therefore, the clarification given by the government applied in toto to the interpretation of the notification. on this count, the allowed the appeal and extended the benefit. against this order, the revenue have filed the present appeal.3. an exemption notification is required to be strictly interpreted reading the plain meaning of the words used therein. the cited notification excludes from its purview switches, plugs, etc. it does not distinguish such articles when used in the place proximate to the main apparatus or at a further distance. when the notification could be clearly interpreted, there was no cause for the collector to rely upon the interpretation given in the case of such goods for determining their classification in the earlier tariff. since the collector has proceeded to interpret the notification on extraneous.....

Full Judgment

1. This appeal from the Revenue was argued by Shri Nunthuk, Id. DR. In terms of earlier order of the Bench, the intimation had been served.

The respondents were, however, not present.

The assessees manufactured switches. Effecting certain clearances under the benefit of Notification 160/86, dated 1-3-1986. Vide show cause notice dated 4-3-1987, it was alleged that the benefit of the notification was not available and on this count, differential duty was chargeable. The Assistant Collector observed that the notification excludes from its coverage switches, plugs, sockets etc. The goods cleared being the same, the benefit was not available. The assessees then filed an appeal. The Collector (Appeals) observed that such products were earlier classified under T.I. 61. He held that the department themselves had clarified by certain Trade Notices that under T.I. 61, only those switches would fall which were directly proximate to the lighting points and those which were not so placed, would fall under the residual classification under T.I. 68. He observed that the wording of the contested notification and of the old tariff item were para meteria and therefore, the clarification given by the Government applied in toto to the interpretation of the notification. On this count, The allowed the appeal and extended the benefit. Against this order, the Revenue have filed the present appeal.

3. An exemption notification is required to be strictly interpreted reading the plain meaning of the words used therein. The cited notification excludes from its purview switches, plugs, etc. It does not distinguish such articles when used in the place proximate to the main apparatus or at a further distance. When the notification could be clearly interpreted, there was no cause for the Collector to rely upon the interpretation given in the case of such goods for determining their classification in the earlier tariff. Since the Collector has proceeded to interpret the notification on extraneous considerations his order does not survive. The appeal is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial