Collector of Central Excise Vs. Usha Engg.

Collector of Central Excise vs Usha Engg.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 07, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/18617

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/18617
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Jul 07, 2000
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

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Usha Engg.

Legal References

Reported In: (2000)(121)ELT73TriDel

Excerpt

.....was sought to be changed under heading no. 85.44 of the tariff. in para-5, the collector (appeals), allahabad had recorded as under :- "5. regarding correct classification of the subject product, i find that there is considerable strength in the appellants plea that for any product to be classified under the heading 85.44, it is a must that the product should be insulated, this follows from the description of the heading 85.44 in the tariff, and this view is also supported by the explanatory notes in the hsn as has been rightly pointed out by the appellants. the appellants' plea is that the subject product is not insulated, and i find that this factual position has not been contradicted by the asstt. collector in the impugned order. i find that the aforesaid points which justify the classification of the subject product under the heading 85.44 which has been raised before me by the appellants were raised by them before the asstt. collector also. although, the asstt. collector has recorded these points in the impugned order, however, instead of recording any finding on these points, he has only repeated the allegations mentioned in the show cause notice in his impugned order and has confirmed the demand. an order passed in this manner cannot be held to be proper and legal." 5. after going through the facts on record, we find that there is no material to disturb the findings of the ld. collector of central excise (appeals), allahabad. we do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the department and the same is dismissed. ordered accordingly.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of the product - Bus Duct. Relying upon the HSN Explanatory Notes and after referring to the product description, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has observed that the goods in dispute were not insulated and held that the goods were not classifiable under Heading No. 85.44 of the Central Excise Tariff and were correctly classifiable under sub-heading No. 8538.00 He also observed that. The classification under that sub-heading had already been approved from time to time by the Department.

2. When the matter was called, none appeared for the respondents. The notice for today's hearing has been received back undelivered from the postal authorities with the remarks "left without address".

3. As the matter is old, in which Order-in-Original was passed in the year 1994, we are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after haring Shri A.K. Jain, JDR.4. It is an admitted position that the bus ducts, which were meant to transit large current concentrations from generators to transformers and other auxiliary station equipments of the power house were classified by the Deptt. from time to time under Heading No. 85.38 of the Tariff. The classification was sought to be changed under Heading No. 85.44 of the Tariff. In para-5, the Collector (Appeals), Allahabad had recorded as under :- "5. Regarding correct classification of the subject product, I find that there is considerable strength in the appellants plea that for any product to be classified under the heading 85.44, it is a must that the product should be insulated, this follows from the description of the heading 85.44 in the tariff, and this view is also supported by the Explanatory Notes in the HSN as has been rightly pointed out by the appellants. The appellants' plea is that the subject product is not insulated, and I find that this factual position has not been contradicted by the Asstt. Collector in the impugned order. I find that the aforesaid points which justify the classification of the subject product under the heading 85.44 which has been raised before me by the Appellants were raised by them before the Asstt. Collector also. Although, the Asstt. Collector has recorded these points in the impugned order, however, instead of recording any finding on these points, he has only repeated the allegations mentioned in the show cause notice in his impugned order and has confirmed the demand. An order passed in this manner cannot be held to be proper and legal." 5. After going through the facts on record, we find that there is no material to disturb the findings of the ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad. We do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the Department and the same is dismissed. Ordered accordingly.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Collector of Central Excise vs Usha Engg. Same Subject Service Tax