Rmk Special Cables Vs. Cce

Rmk Special Cables vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 10, 2002

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/28183

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/28183
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, S T S.S.
Decided On: May 10, 2002
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rmk Special Cables

Advocate Shri. Sorabjee

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(104)LC482Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the issue in dispute relates to classification of thermocouple extension wire/compensating cable manufactured by the appellants herein--whether under chapter sub-heading 9033.00 as claimed by the assessee or chapter sub-heading 8544.00 as held by the revenue. the duty demand of rs. 27,43,385/- arises as a result of confirmation of the classification under ceta sub-heading 8544.00 which attracted duty @ 35% as opposed to rate of duty @ 15% for goods falling under ceta sub-heading 9033.00.2. we have heard shri atul setalwad, learned senior counsel appearing along with shri sorabjee, learned counsel for the appellants and shri bodade, learned dr for the revenue and find that the issue is no longer res integra as it has been settled by the larger bench of the tribunal in the case of cce, bombay v. fykys engineering pvt. ltd. wherein it has been held that thermocouple/compensating cables are classifiable under ceta subheading 9025.00 of the schedule to the ceta, 1985. since the rate of duty under the heading claimed by the assessee i.e., under 90.33 and 90.25 finally upheld are stated to have been the same during the relevant period no additional duty liability arises in this appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The issue in dispute relates to classification of Thermocouple Extension wire/compensating Cable manufactured by the appellants herein--whether under Chapter sub-heading 9033.00 as claimed by the assessee or Chapter sub-heading 8544.00 as held by the Revenue. The duty demand of Rs. 27,43,385/- arises as a result of confirmation of the classification under CETA sub-heading 8544.00 which attracted duty @ 35% as opposed to rate of duty @ 15% for goods falling under CETA sub-heading 9033.00.

2. We have heard Shri Atul Setalwad, learned senior counsel appearing along with Shri Sorabjee, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri Bodade, learned DR for the Revenue and find that the issue is no longer res integra as it has been settled by the larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Bombay v. Fykys Engineering Pvt. Ltd. wherein it has been held that Thermocouple/Compensating cables are classifiable under CETA subheading 9025.00 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. Since the rate of duty under the heading claimed by the assessee i.e., under 90.33 and 90.25 finally upheld are stated to have been the same during the relevant period no additional duty liability arises in this appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Rmk Special Cables vs Cce Same Subject Excise Same Judge J Balasundaram, S T S.S.