Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Eswaran and Sons Engineers Ltd.

Collector of C. Ex. vs Eswaran and Sons Engineers Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jun 22, 1999

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/16076

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/16076
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Jun 22, 1999
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of C. Ex.

Respondent

Eswaran and Sons Engineers Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (1999)(113)ELT512TriDel

Excerpt

.....dated 1-3-1986.the exempted rate was 15% adv. while the non-exempted rate was 20% adv.the duty involved was rs. 768.40 basic duty and rs. 38.70 sed. the collector of central excise (appeals) had held that the isolators were eligible for the concessional rate available under notification no.160/86-c.e. the respondents, m/s. eswaran & sons engineers ltd. have prayed for transfer of their appeal to south zonal bench, chennai.2. keeping in view the revenue involved and the fact that the matter is very old in which the order-in-original was passed in the year 1992, we are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing shri r.d. negi, sdr.3. the nature of the goods had been discussed by the asstt. collector of central excise. the collector of central excise (appeals) has referred to the isi specifications and british standard specifications and had observed that isolator which is also called as disconnector is a mechanical switching device which provides, in the open position, an isolating distance in accordance with the specified requirements. from the benefit of notification no. 160/86-c.e., among others, only switches were excluded. as the isolator was not a switch but a mechanical switching device, the collector of central excise (appeals) had held that the isolators were eligible for the concessional rate of duty. nothing has been placed on record to justify the view taken by the revenue in the grounds of appeal. the revenue involved is only rs. 807.10.4. taking all the relevant considerations into account, we do not find any ground to disturb the findings of fact of the learned collector of central excise (appeals). in view of the above, the appeal filed by the revenue is rejected. ordered accordingly.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the eligibility of the Isolators classifiable under sub-heading No. 8536.90 of the Central Excise Tariff to the benefit of Notification No.160/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. In the Isolators three isolating switches were mounted on a common base with a protective apparatus in the form of a door inter-locking system to prevent accidental locking of the door when the isolator was in on position. It was designed for isolating section of an electric line. They were known as Single Pole, Dipole or Tripole according to the number of switches and circuits incorporated. From the benefit of Notification No. 160/86-C.E. switches were excluded. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise had taken a view that isolator was classifiable as a switch and the isolators were not eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 160/86-CE., dated 1-3-1986.

The exempted rate was 15% adv. while the non-exempted rate was 20% adv.The duty involved was Rs. 768.40 basic duty and Rs. 38.70 SED. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had held that the isolators were eligible for the concessional rate available under Notification No.160/86-C.E. The respondents, M/s. Eswaran & Sons Engineers Ltd. have prayed for transfer of their appeal to South Zonal Bench, Chennai.

2. Keeping in view the Revenue involved and the fact that the matter is very old in which the Order-in-Original was passed in the year 1992, we are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri R.D. Negi, SDR.3. The nature of the goods had been discussed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has referred to the ISI specifications and British Standard specifications and had observed that isolator which is also called as disconnector is a mechanical switching device which provides, in the open position, an isolating distance in accordance with the specified requirements. From the benefit of Notification No. 160/86-C.E., among others, only switches were excluded. As the isolator was not a switch but a mechanical switching device, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had held that the isolators were eligible for the concessional rate of duty. Nothing has been placed on record to justify the view taken by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal. The Revenue involved is only Rs. 807.10.

4. Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we do not find any ground to disturb the findings of fact of the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). In view of the above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. Ordered accordingly.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Collector of C. Ex. vs Eswaran and Sons Engineers Ltd. Same Subject Land Acquisition