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 Central Excise Vs. Trinitron Conktrol Systems Pvt.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Trinitron Conktrol Systems Pvt.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Mar 08, 2000
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/17823

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
Customs

Case Summary

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

Customs

Key legal issue
Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Trinitron Conktrol Systems Pvt.

Legal References

Reported In
(2002)(146)ELT720TriDel

Excerpt

1. whether the 'bus trunking', manufactured and cleared by the assessee, is classifiable under subheading 8538.00, as claimed by the party or under sub-heading 8544.00 as per the department, is an issue to be considered in this case.2. the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of 'bus trunking and claimed under chapter sub-heading 8538.00 of central excise tariff act, 1985. the asst. collector did not accept the contention of the party and held that this item is classifiable under sub-heading 8544.00. on an appeal filed by the assessee, the commissioner (appeals), following the decision of the tribunal in the case of vikas engineering associates v. cce, allahabad reported in 1995 (78) e.l.t. 219, classified the item under sub-heading 8538.00, as claimed by the party.3. the department has filed an appeal on the ground that the view taken by the tribunal was not acceptable and filed slp before the hon'ble supreme court.4. since the issue involved herein has already been considered and concluded by the tribunal in the aforesaid case, following the ratio, we hold that the product, in question, is classifiable under sub-heading 8538.00. in the result, the appeal filed by the department is, hereby dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. Whether the 'Bus Trunking', manufactured and cleared by the assessee, is classifiable under subheading 8538.00, as claimed by the party or under sub-heading 8544.00 as per the Department, is an issue to be considered in this case.

2. The Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of 'Bus Trunking and claimed under Chapter sub-heading 8538.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Asst. Collector did not accept the contention of the party and held that this item is classifiable under sub-heading 8544.00. On an appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals), following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vikas Engineering Associates v. CCE, Allahabad reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 219, classified the item under sub-heading 8538.00, as claimed by the party.

3. The Department has filed an appeal on the ground that the view taken by the Tribunal was not acceptable and filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

4. Since the issue involved herein has already been considered and concluded by the Tribunal in the aforesaid case, following the ratio, we hold that the product, in question, is classifiable under sub-heading 8538.00. In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is, hereby dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial