Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. S.N. Traders

Commissioner of C. Ex. vs S.N. Traders

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Oct 28, 2002

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/29201

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/29201
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, J T J.H.
Decided On: Oct 28, 2002
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Respondent

S.N. Traders

Advocate Shri. Mehta

Legal References

Reported In: (2003)(153)ELT324Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....or penalty was imposed. shri patel then filed an appeal. the issue before the commissioner was whether benefit of notification no. 8/99 and 9/99 was available to the manufacturer or not. the plea was also made that assembly did not amount to manufacture. the commissioner held that such assembly amounted to manufacture. he further examined the classification of the goods in view of the fact that classification under chapter heading 9101 and 9102 would put the watches out of the purview of the exemption notification. on examination of the tariff entry, he arrived at the conclusion that the goods would merit classification under heading 91.10. against this order, the revenue have filed the appeal as also the present application for stay of operation of the order.2. shri gupta, d.r. on behalf of the revenue claims classification under heading 91.02 where the benefit of notification is not available.shri mehta, counsel for the respondent states that assembly did not amount to manufacture and also that the goods could not qualify for classification under heading 91.02 since there was no precious metals. "91.01 - wrist-watches, pocket-watches and other watches, including stopwatches, with case of precious metal or of metal clad with precious metal" "91.02 - wrist watches, pocket-watches and other watches, including stopwatches, other than those of heading no. 91.01". "heading no. 91.01 covers only watches with case wholly of precious metal or of metal clad with precious metal, or of the same materials combined with natural or cultured pearls, or precious or semi-precious stones (natural, synthetic or reconstructed) of chapter 71. watches with case of base metal inlaid with precious metal fall in heading no. 91.02." 6. chapter heading 91.02 admits of inclusion of watches where the case is made out of precious metals. vide chapter note 2 this classification is extended to watches with case of base metal inlaid with precious metal. the wordings of the entry read with.....

Full Judgment

1. The Central Excise Authorities on a search of the premises found that one Shri H.H. Patel was assembling wrist watches and clearing them without payment of Central Excise Duty. Show cause notice was issued seeking recovery of duty amounting to Rs. 1,11,006.08. This demand was confirmed and equal amount or penalty was imposed. Shri Patel then filed an appeal. The issue before the Commissioner was whether benefit of Notification No. 8/99 and 9/99 was available to the manufacturer or not. The plea was also made that assembly did not amount to manufacture. The Commissioner held that such assembly amounted to manufacture. He further examined the classification of the goods in view of the fact that classification under Chapter Heading 9101 and 9102 would put the watches out of the purview of the exemption Notification. On examination of the Tariff Entry, he arrived at the conclusion that the goods would merit classification under heading 91.10. Against this order, the Revenue have filed the appeal as also the present application for stay of operation of the order.

2. Shri Gupta, D.R. on behalf of the Revenue claims classification under Heading 91.02 where the benefit of notification is not available.

Shri Mehta, counsel for the respondent states that assembly did not amount to manufacture and also that the goods could not qualify for classification under Heading 91.02 since there was no precious metals.

"91.01 - Wrist-watches, pocket-watches and other watches, including stopwatches, with case of precious metal or of metal clad with precious metal" "91.02 - Wrist watches, pocket-watches and other watches, including stopwatches, other than those of Heading No. 91.01".

"Heading No. 91.01 covers only watches with case wholly of precious metal or of metal clad with precious metal, or of the same materials combined with natural or cultured pearls, or precious or semi-precious stones (natural, synthetic or reconstructed) of Chapter 71. Watches with case of base metal inlaid with precious metal fall in Heading No. 91.02." 6. Chapter Heading 91.02 admits of inclusion of watches where the case is made out of precious metals. Vide Chapter Note 2 this classification is extended to watches with case of base metal inlaid with precious metal. The wordings of the entry read with Chapter Note cannot lead to the belief that in the absence of any precious metals, the watches made with base metal would not merit classification under Heading 91.02. The Commissioner seems to have mis-directed himself in holding that the watches do not fall under Heading 91.02. Sub-heading 91.10 admits only of watch movements and not watches. In terms of the panchnama, what was manufactured was watches. We have heard Shri Mehta's continuous claim that the assembly did not amount to manufacture and that the panch witnesses were unable to judge whether the goods were movements or watches, but are not convinced.

7. On the basis of the above observations/ we grant the prayer and stay the operation of the impugned order.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of C. Ex. vs S.N. Traders Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge J Balasundaram, J T J.H.