Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Meco Instruments Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Meco Instruments Pvt. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 14, 2003

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/29837

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/29837
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: K Kumar, S T C.
Decided On: Jan 14, 2003
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

Meco Instruments Pvt. Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)LC120Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the issue relates to the classification of electrical item 'shunt'.shri ishwar singh, learned j.d.r. appearing on behalf of the revenue submits that the item is specifically covered under entry 85.33 of the central excise tariff and therefore the assistant commissioner has rightly classified the same under the said entry. he also relies on the decision of the commissioner (appeals) order dated 28-9-1993 passed in the case of m/s. automatic electric. his contention is that the commissioner (appeals) has wrongly classified the item under 90.33 when the same is specifically covered under 85.33.3. after hearing the learned j.d.r. and perusal of the records, we find that since the item in question is specifically covered under entry 85.33 the commissioner (appeals) should not have upset the classification done by the assistant commissioner in his order dated 4-10-1996.4. the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

Full Judgment

1. The issue relates to the classification of electrical item 'shunt'.

Shri Ishwar Singh, learned J.D.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that the item is specifically covered under Entry 85.33 of the Central Excise Tariff and therefore the Assistant Commissioner has rightly classified the same under the said entry. He also relies on the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) Order dated 28-9-1993 passed in the case of M/s. Automatic Electric. His contention is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly classified the item under 90.33 when the same is specifically covered under 85.33.

3. After hearing the learned J.D.R. and perusal of the records, we find that since the item in question is specifically covered under Entry 85.33 the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have upset the classification done by the Assistant Commissioner in his order dated 4-10-1996.

4. The appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Meco Instruments Pvt. Ltd. Same Subject Excise Same Judge K Kumar, S T C.