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.

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Electro Pneumatics and

Commr. of C. Ex. vs Electro Pneumatics and

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 15, 2000
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/17888

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 Mumbai
Decided On
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

Commr. of C. Ex.

Respondent

Electro Pneumatics and

Legal References

Reported In
(2000)(118)ELT594Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the appeal filed by the department is against the order of the commissioner (appeals), confirming the claim of the assessee that hydraulic press, pipes, tube, bending machines, special purpose machines for working metal and honing machines, all computer numerically controlled are cnc machines tools and has been exempted under notification 253/88.2. after hearing the departmental representative we find no merits whatsoever in the department's appeal. the only ground in the appeal is that the goods are more appropriately classifiable as machines and not machine tools. machine tools are necessarily machines. machine tools are defined in the mcgraw-hill dictionary of scientific and technical terms, third edition, as "stationary power driven machine for shaping, cutting, turning, boring, drilling, grinding or polishing of solid parts especially metal". the appeal does not question that the goods are machines tools since they are classifiable either under heading 8460.00 or 8462.00, which was approved by the superintendent either in the appeal before the commissioner (appeals) or in the appeal before us. what was questioned in these proceedings was only the applicability of the notification. we cannot find, how when the department does not dispute the classification of the goods as machine tools, it can claim that the benefit of the notification will not apply for the reason that they are not machine tools.

Full Judgment

1. The appeal filed by the department is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), confirming the claim of the assessee that hydraulic press, pipes, tube, bending machines, special purpose machines for working metal and honing machines, all computer numerically controlled are CNC machines tools and has been exempted under Notification 253/88.

2. After hearing the departmental representative we find no merits whatsoever in the department's appeal. The only ground in the appeal is that the goods are more appropriately classifiable as machines and not machine tools. Machine tools are necessarily machines. Machine tools are defined in the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, third edition, as "stationary power driven machine for shaping, cutting, turning, boring, drilling, grinding or polishing of solid parts especially metal". The appeal does not question that the goods are machines tools since they are classifiable either under Heading 8460.00 or 8462.00, which was approved by the Superintendent either in the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or in the appeal before us. What was questioned in these proceedings was only the applicability of the notification. We cannot find, how when the department does not dispute the classification of the goods as machine tools, it can claim that the benefit of the notification will not apply for the reason that they are not machine tools.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial