Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Rex Rubber Works

Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Rex Rubber Works

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 21, 2002

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/28265

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/28265
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, S T S.S.
Decided On: May 21, 2002
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Respondent

Rex Rubber Works

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(145)ELT573Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the issue in dispute in the above appeal of the revenue is the correct classification of moulded plastic wheels; manufactured by the respondents herein - whether under central excise tariff sub-heading 3926.90 as articles of plastic as claimed by the manufacturers or under cet sub-heading 8716.00 as parts of trailers and semi-trailers and other vehicles not mechanically propelled as contended by the department.2. we have heard both sides. the hsn explanatory notes under heading 87.16 (page 1441) makes it clear that only wooden or steel wheels and parts thereof identifiable as parts of trolley, trailers etc. fall under chapter 87. further note 2(b) to section xvii under which chapter 87 is covered makes it very clear that the expression "parts" does not apply to parts of general use of plastic. the commissioner (appeals) has given a categorical finding that the wheels manufactured by the respondents herein are not iron or wooden but are of plastic and further they are used for trolleys, for moving the baggage, in toys, in furniture etc. this finding on fact has not been controverted by the department in appeal before us. therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the order of the commissioner (appeals). hence, we uphold the same and reject the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The issue in dispute in the above appeal of the Revenue is the correct classification of moulded plastic wheels; manufactured by the respondents herein - whether under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 3926.90 as articles of plastic as claimed by the manufacturers or under CET sub-heading 8716.00 as parts of trailers and semi-trailers and other vehicles not mechanically propelled as contended by the department.

2. We have heard both sides. The HSN Explanatory notes under Heading 87.16 (page 1441) makes it clear that only wooden or steel wheels and parts thereof identifiable as parts of trolley, trailers etc. fall under Chapter 87. Further Note 2(b) to Section XVII under which Chapter 87 is covered makes it very clear that the expression "parts" does not apply to parts of general use of plastic. The Commissioner (Appeals) has given a categorical finding that the wheels manufactured by the respondents herein are not iron or wooden but are of plastic and further they are used for trolleys, for moving the baggage, in toys, in furniture etc. This finding on fact has not been controverted by the department in appeal before us. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, we uphold the same and reject the appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Rex Rubber Works Same Subject MRTP Same Judge J Balasundaram, S T S.S.