Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Borosil Glass Works Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Borosil Glass Works Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Nov 17, 2000

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/19776

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/19776
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T Gowri, J S Murthy
Decided On: Nov 17, 2000
Subject: Intellectual Property

Case Summary

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

Intellectual Property

Key legal issue: Intellectual Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Borosil Glass Works Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2001)(74)ECC493

Excerpt

.....in the appeal was whether the benefit of notification would be available to glassware such as plates and bowls, which were also capable of being used in oven. the tribunal did not accept the contention of the appellant commissioner that the fact that these articles could be used for baking in an oven (being able to withstand heat rendered them incapable to be considered tableware, and so ineligible for the exemption contained in the notification for specified tableware of glass. an application was filed alleging mistake in his order on the ground that the tribunal had not considered another order passed by the bench d in delhi, which took a contrary view. the tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that this order had not been brought to its notice.3. to the extent that the application seeks to refer any question arising out of this second order, it is not maintainable. a reference can arise out of an order disposing of an appeal, and not an order disposing of a rectification application.4. apart from this, the application in any case is not maintainable.the question that it proposes revolves around the fact the decision of the delhi bench and its suggestion that, the matter should have been referred to a larger bench. the question before the bench at delhi, and the one before this bench, were entirely different. the question before the bench at delhi was whether a rectangular casserole could be described as a bowl, which was one of the five articles exempted under entry 2 of the table to notification. the tribunal concluded that the rectangular casserole was not such a bowl.5. that however is not the question before the tribunal at mumbai. the first paragraph of this order has explained what that question was.therefore, even if the decision of the delhi bench had been cited before this bench, had been cited before the tribunal, it would have concluded that it has no relevance to factors before it for consideration. the question proposed therefore.....

Full Judgment

1. This application arises out of the orders of the Tribunal disposing of an appeal and, later, an application for rectification of mistake in the order disposing of the appeal.

2. The question before the Tribunal in the appeal was whether the benefit of notification would be available to glassware such as plates and bowls, which were also capable of being used in oven. The Tribunal did not accept the contention of the appellant Commissioner that the fact that these articles could be used for baking in an oven (being able to withstand heat rendered them incapable to be considered tableware, and so ineligible for the exemption contained in the notification for specified tableware of glass. An application was filed alleging mistake in his order on the ground that the Tribunal had not considered another order passed by the Bench D in Delhi, which took a contrary view. The Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that this order had not been brought to its notice.

3. To the extent that the application seeks to refer any question arising out of this second order, it is not maintainable. A reference can arise out of an order disposing of an appeal, and not an order disposing of a rectification application.

4. Apart from this, the application in any case is not maintainable.

The question that it proposes revolves around the fact the decision of the Delhi bench and its suggestion that, the matter should have been referred to a Larger Bench. The question before the bench at Delhi, and the one before this bench, were entirely different. The question before the bench at Delhi was whether a rectangular casserole could be described as a bowl, which was one of the five articles exempted under Entry 2 of the Table to notification. The Tribunal concluded that the rectangular casserole was not such a bowl.

5. That however is not the question before the Tribunal at Mumbai. The first paragraph of this order has explained what that question was.

Therefore, even if the decision of the Delhi bench had been cited before this bench, had been cited before the Tribunal, it would have concluded that it has no relevance to factors before it for consideration. The question proposed therefore does not arise out of the Tribunal's order.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Borosil Glass Works Ltd. Same Subject Intellectual Property Same Judge S T Gowri, J S Murthy