Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Vasu Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Vasu Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 10, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/25545

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/25545
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Sep 10, 2001
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Vasu Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

Excerpt

1. in the order impugned in the appeal, the commissioner(appeals) has held that the trichup oil manufactured by the applicant is classifiable as a perfumed hair oil under 3305.10 of the tariff overruling the classification under sub-heading 99 (others) of that heading.2. the application filed by the department for stay of this order is on the ground that the commissioner (appeals)'s order is bad in law and the matter is sub judice, being a subject matter of a writ petition before the gujarat high court. this is obviously an untenable claim. if this order is sub judice, so is the order of the asst. commissioner confirming the classification. that order has been issued. the order has been field in pursuance of an interim order of the high court filed in a writ petition.3. nor is it possible to hold at this stage that the commissioner (appeals)' order is in contravention of the earlier order of the tribunal which has been challenged before the high court, classifying the product. the tribunal classified the product in chapter 33 declining to accept the manufacturer's claim that it was classifiable under chapter 30. we are now concerned with classification in the heading of chapter 33.

Full Judgment

1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner(Appeals) has held that the Trichup oil manufactured by the applicant is classifiable as a perfumed hair oil under 3305.10 of the Tariff overruling the classification under sub-heading 99 (others) of that heading.

2. The application filed by the department for stay of this order is on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order is bad in law and the matter is sub judice, being a subject matter of a writ petition before the Gujarat High Court. This is obviously an untenable claim. If this order is sub judice, so is the order of the Asst. Commissioner confirming the classification. That order has been issued. The order has been field in pursuance of an interim order of the High Court filed in a writ petition.

3. Nor is it possible to hold at this stage that the Commissioner (Appeals)' order is in contravention of the earlier order of the Tribunal which has been challenged before the High Court, classifying the product. The Tribunal classified the product in Chapter 33 declining to accept the manufacturer's claim that it was classifiable under Chapter 30. We are now concerned with classification in the heading of Chapter 33.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Vasu Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Same Subject MRTP