Collector of Central Excise Vs. Delta Paper Mills

Collector of Central Excise vs Delta Paper Mills

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Oct 01, 1999

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/16901

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/16901
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Oct 01, 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 Central Excise

Respondent

Delta Paper Mills

Legal References

Reported In: (1999)(114)ELT951TriDel

Excerpt

1. in the impugned order, the collector (appeals) has held that sodium rosinate added to pulp during manufacture of paper by the respondents is not known in the market and is, therefore, not goods on which duty can be levied. in coming to this conclusion, he followed the decision of the hon'ble tribunal in the shiva paper mills case reported in 1994 (73) e.l.t. 555.2. we have heard both sides. the submission of the learned dr is that sodium rosinate has shelf life and is classifiable under cet sub-heading 3801.19 during the period prior to 10-2-1987, and under cet sub-heading 3806.90 from that date, attracting duty at the appropriate rate. learned consultant for the respondents relies upon the tribunal's decision which is a very detailed order holding that sodium rosinate is not marketable.3. the decision of the tribunal cited by the learned consultant is applicable on all fours to the present case. the tribunal has relied upon its earlier order in the case of indian cardboard industries v.collector reported in 1991 (54) e.l.t. 221 which has considered the technical material and hsn explanatory notes. following the ratio of the shiva paper mills case cited supra, we hold that there is no legal infirmity in the order of the lower appellate authority and accordingly uphold the same and dismiss the appeal of the revenue.

Full Judgment

1. In the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) has held that sodium rosinate added to pulp during manufacture of paper by the respondents is not known in the market and is, therefore, not goods on which duty can be levied. In coming to this conclusion, he followed the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the Shiva Paper Mills case reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 555.

2. We have heard both sides. The submission of the learned DR is that sodium rosinate has shelf life and is classifiable under CET sub-heading 3801.19 during the period prior to 10-2-1987, and under CET sub-heading 3806.90 from that date, attracting duty at the appropriate rate. Learned Consultant for the respondents relies upon the Tribunal's decision which is a very detailed order holding that sodium rosinate is not marketable.

3. The decision of the Tribunal cited by the learned Consultant is applicable on all fours to the present case. The Tribunal has relied upon its earlier order in the case of Indian Cardboard Industries v.Collector reported in 1991 (54) E.L.T. 221 which has considered the technical material and HSN Explanatory Notes. Following the ratio of the Shiva Paper Mills case cited supra, we hold that there is no legal infirmity in the order of the lower appellate authority and accordingly uphold the same and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Collector of Central Excise vs Delta Paper Mills Same Subject Land Acquisition