Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Trinity Plastic

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Trinity Plastic

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 06, 2003
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/29772

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Trinity Plastic

Legal References

Reported In
(2003)(156)ELT400Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the circular no. 577/14/01, dated 11-6-2001 of the board reproduced in 2001 (131) e.l.t. t-3 has clarified that the polypropylene tubes which arose in the course of manufacture of "satranjs" of plastics are not capable of being marketed and hence no duty is leviable on such material.2. in that situation the claim of the department seeking classification of the goods in heading 54.04 would be only of academic interest.

Full Judgment

1. The circular No. 577/14/01, dated 11-6-2001 of the Board reproduced in 2001 (131) E.L.T. T-3 has clarified that the polypropylene tubes which arose in the course of manufacture of "satranjs" of plastics are not capable of being marketed and hence no duty is leviable on such material.

2. In that situation the claim of the department seeking classification of the goods in heading 54.04 would be only of academic interest.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial