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.

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Superfine Industries

Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Superfine Industries

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Aug 27, 1999
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/16608

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
Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Respondent

Superfine Industries

Legal References

Reported In
(2000)(116)ELT658TriDel

Excerpt

.....record.therefore, the appeal is being taken up in absence of the respondents.the revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 20-7-1993 passed by the collector of central excise (appeals).2. the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products falling under chapter 72 of the central excise tariff and filed a classification list w.e.f. 11-12-1990 and claimed the classification of the goods i.e. bars below 3 mm in thickness and width below 75 mm and bars below 3 mm in thickness and width 75 mm under sub-heading 7214.90. a show cause notice was issued to the respondents classifying the products under sub-heading 7211.30 and 7211.19 of the tariff. the adjudicating authority held against the respondents. the respondents filed appeal and vide impugned order of the appeal was allowed. shri r.k. sharma, learned sdr, appearing on behalf of the revenue, submitted that in the similar case after following the decision of the haryana and punjab high court, the tribunal in the case of commissioner of central excise, chandigarh v. a.k. steel industries vide final order nos. e/1778-1792/98-b1, dated 18-12-1998 remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority with the direction to pass a speaking order afresh after physical verification of the goods.3. heard learned sdr and perused the appeal papers. the tribunal in the similar situation in the case c.c. v. a.k. steel (supra) set aside the impugned order and remanded the issue to the adjudicating authority.the tribunal held as under: "we have also perused the judgment of the tribunal in the case of calcutta steel industries and find that it was not established in that case the product in dispute had rectangular cross-section which is part of the definition of flats of rolled products. on the other hand, we have also perused the judgment of the tribunal in the case of garg strips re-rolling mills (p) limited - [1995 (78) e.l.t. 93] wherein the tribunal has held that the product having.....

Full Judgment

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of the service of notice as per acknowledgement record.

Therefore, the appeal is being taken up in absence of the respondents.

The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 20-7-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).

2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Iron and Steel products falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff and filed a classification list w.e.f. 11-12-1990 and claimed the classification of the goods i.e. bars below 3 mm in thickness and width below 75 mm and bars below 3 mm in thickness and width 75 mm under sub-heading 7214.90. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents classifying the products under sub-heading 7211.30 and 7211.19 of the Tariff. The adjudicating authority held against the respondents. The respondents filed appeal and vide impugned order of the appeal was allowed. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned SDR, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submitted that in the similar case after following the decision of the Haryana and Punjab High Court, the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. A.K. Steel Industries vide Final Order Nos. E/1778-1792/98-B1, dated 18-12-1998 remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority with the direction to pass a speaking order afresh after physical verification of the goods.

3. Heard learned SDR and perused the appeal papers. The Tribunal in the similar situation in the case C.C. v. A.K. Steel (supra) set aside the impugned order and remanded the issue to the adjudicating authority.

The Tribunal held as under: "We have also perused the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Calcutta Steel Industries and find that it was not established in that case the product in dispute had rectangular cross-section which is part of the definition of flats of rolled products. On the other hand, we have also perused the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Garg Strips Re-Rolling Mills (P) Limited - [1995 (78) E.L.T. 93] wherein the Tribunal has held that the product having rectangular cross-section conforming to the definition of the flat rolled products and therefore to be considered as flats or strips. Since the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has remanded the aspect of verification as to whether the products bars of flats rolled products to the original assessing authority in that case the manufacturers who are petitioners before the High Court, we follow the same ratio in this case also and remand the matter for verification as to whether the products manufactured by the respondents conform to the definition in the Tariff of flats rolled products or otherwise. If the products confirm to such definition, they cannot be considered to be bars but will be flats/strips. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the appeals are allowed by way of remand. The original authority to whom the cases are remanded shall pass afresh orders after physical verification and after affording the reasonabale opportunity of being heard in person to the appellants. The appeals are allowed by way of remand".

4. Respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial