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.

Db Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Db Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 14, 1999
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/15850

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 Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Db Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(1999)(66)ECC473

Excerpt

.....of the assistant commissioner's order and that it anticipates action to be taken to enforce the bank guarantee.2. the duty of rs. 8.95 lakhs approximately has been demanded on the ground that uninterrupted power supply systems (ups for short) manufactured by the applicant are classifiable under heading 85.43 of the tariff not under heading 85.04 as claimed by the assessee. penalty of rs. 5,000 has also been imposed.3. advocate for the applicant contends that classification of ups under heading 85.43 determined by the tribunal in its decision in j.k.synthetics cce has been referred for reconsideration by mangalore chemicals & fertilisers co. ltd. v. cc .the latter decision referred to the opinion given by the world customs organisation that the goods are classifiable under heading 85.43. he contends that the tariff heading in the customs and central excise tariff are identical, both being derived from harmonized system of nomenclature (hsn for short). he further contends that notices to show cause issued on the assumption that goods are classifiable under heading 85.43.4. the departmental representative contends that the classification determined is in accordance with the decision of the tribunal in j.k.synthetics v. cce . operation of the order is still in force. he says that notice to show cause reasons why classification claimed by the assessee is not accepted.5. we do not prima facie find merit for the applicant on the latter ground. the notice to show cause proposed classification under heading other than that claimed by the assessee and demanded duty payable on such classification. however, on merits the applicant has a case, in that the bench while deciding mangalore chemicals & fertilisers co.ltd. v. cc has indicated sufficient grounds for reconsideration of the decision in j.k. synthetics v. cce.6. in these circumstances we accept the offer made by the applicant to continue with bank guarantee for duty amount pending in the appeal and accordingly.....

Full Judgment

1. The stay application, which would have been heard in the normal course, has been taken up for hearing out of turn on the ground urged by the applicant that bank guarantee for the duty is furnished in pursuance of the High Court's order which would cover a period beyond 3 months of the Assistant Commissioner's order and that it anticipates action to be taken to enforce the bank guarantee.

2. The duty of Rs. 8.95 lakhs approximately has been demanded on the ground that Uninterrupted Power Supply Systems (UPS for short) manufactured by the applicant are classifiable under heading 85.43 of the Tariff not under heading 85.04 as claimed by the assessee. Penalty of Rs. 5,000 has also been imposed.

3. Advocate for the applicant contends that classification of UPS under heading 85.43 determined by the Tribunal in its decision in J.K.Synthetics CCE has been referred for reconsideration by Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilisers Co. Ltd. v. CC .

The latter decision referred to the opinion given by the World Customs Organisation that the goods are classifiable under heading 85.43. He contends that the Tariff heading in the Customs and Central Excise Tariff are identical, both being derived from Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN for short). He further contends that notices to show cause issued on the assumption that goods are classifiable under heading 85.43.

4. The departmental representative contends that the classification determined is in accordance with the decision of the Tribunal in J.K.Synthetics v. CCE . Operation of the order is still in force. He says that notice to show cause reasons why classification claimed by the assessee is not accepted.

5. We do not prima facie find merit for the applicant on the latter ground. The notice to show cause proposed classification under heading other than that claimed by the assessee and demanded duty payable on such classification. However, on merits the applicant has a case, in that the Bench while deciding Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilisers Co.

Ltd. v. CC has indicated sufficient grounds for reconsideration of the decision in J.K. Synthetics v. CCE.6. In these circumstances we accept the offer made by the applicant to continue with bank guarantee for duty amount pending in the appeal and accordingly waive deposit of the duty and penalty and stay their recovery.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial