Collector of Central Excise Vs. Teknic Controls

Collector of Central Excise vs Teknic Controls

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jun 15, 1999

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/16038

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/16038
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Jun 15, 1999
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Teknic Controls

Legal References

Reported In: (1999)(113)ELT153TriDel

Excerpt

.....prayed for decision on merits. they have submitted that the department had all along classified the pilot light under sub-heading no. 8536.90 and that they had accepted the said classification. at no stage, the classification was challenged by the revenue. the benefit of notification no. 160/86-c.e., dated 1-3-1986 had been extended to the respondent by the collector of central excise (appeals) and this had not been agitated by the revenue in their appeal.4. we have heard shri r.d. negi, sdr and have gone through the facts on record.5. we find that all along the department had classified the product -pilot light under sub-heading no. 8536.90 and at no stage, it had been contended that the correct classification was under heading no. 85.31.at no stage, the assessee was confronted with this classification. we find that no adequate grounds had been given to challenge the classification. the goods were used on control panels and consoles and were not for road signals, although called control and signalling devices.6. keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the revenue and the same is rejected. ordered accordingly.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of the goods described as Pilot Light. In the show cause notice dated 2-3-1990, the issue for consideration was the eligibility of the product to the benefit of Notification No. 160/86-C.E. The classification under sub-heading No. 8536.90 was proposed in the show cause notice confirmed by the adjudicating authority and also confirmed by the appellate authority. The adjudicating authority had denied the benefit of Notification No. 160/86 but the Collector of Central (Appeals) had held that the goods in question were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 160/86-C.E.2. In the appeal, the Revenue had pleaded that the goods were correctly classifiable under Heading No. 85.31 of the Central Excise Tariff as visual signalling apparatus.

3. The respondents have prayed for decision on merits. They have submitted that the Department had all along classified the Pilot Light under sub-heading No. 8536.90 and that they had accepted the said classification. At no stage, the classification was challenged by the Revenue. The benefit of Notification No. 160/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 had been extended to the respondent by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and this had not been agitated by the Revenue in their appeal.

4. We have heard Shri R.D. Negi, SDR and have gone through the facts on record.

5. We find that all along the Department had classified the product -Pilot Light under sub-heading No. 8536.90 and at no stage, it had been contended that the correct classification was under Heading No. 85.31.

At no stage, the assessee was confronted with this classification. We find that no adequate grounds had been given to challenge the classification. The goods were used on control panels and consoles and were not for road signals, although called control and signalling devices.

6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is rejected. Ordered accordingly.

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