Commissioner of Customs Vs. Tipco Polymers Ltd.

Commissioner of Customs vs Tipco Polymers Ltd.

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

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/32662

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/32662
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: K Kumar, S T C.
Decided On: Oct 14, 2003
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 Customs

Respondent

Tipco Polymers Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2003)(158)ELT633Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. heard both sides. in this case, the impugned goods were classified by the original authority under subheading no. 3926.90. however, the commissioner (appeals) has classified the impugned goods (foot bridge of plastic) under sub-heading no. 3925.99. the department has come in appeal against the impugned classification ordered by the commissioner (appeals). it is the case of the department that the respondents have themselves admitted in the classification list that foot bridges are made of plastic. the department has also challenged the contention of the respondents that the impugned goods are 'builders' ware' inasmuch as the chapter note 11 for heading no. 3925 does not specify foot bridges. the department has also pointed out that the respondents themselves had mentioned that the impugned goods are used by the defence forces for crossing rivers, etc.2. considering the submissions made by both sides and perusal of case records, related tariff entries and chapter note, we are of the considered view that the impugned goods are appropriately classifiable under sub-heading 3920.90. as such, we set aside the order-in-appeal and restore the order-in-original.3. the appeal is allowed. our decision as above was pronounced in the court on the date of hearing on 10-1-2003.

Full Judgment

1. Heard both sides. In this case, the impugned goods were classified by the original authority under subheading No. 3926.90. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has classified the impugned goods (Foot Bridge of Plastic) under sub-heading No. 3925.99. The Department has come in appeal against the impugned classification ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is the case of the Department that the respondents have themselves admitted in the classification list that foot bridges are made of plastic. The Department has also challenged the contention of the respondents that the impugned goods are 'builders' ware' inasmuch as the Chapter Note 11 for Heading No. 3925 does not specify foot bridges. The Department has also pointed out that the respondents themselves had mentioned that the impugned goods are used by the Defence Forces for crossing rivers, etc.

2. Considering the submissions made by both sides and perusal of case records, related tariff entries and Chapter Note, we are of the considered view that the impugned goods are appropriately classifiable under sub-heading 3920.90. As such, we set aside the order-in-appeal and restore the order-in-original.

3. The appeal is allowed. Our decision as above was pronounced in the Court on the date of hearing on 10-1-2003.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Customs vs Tipco Polymers Ltd. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge K Kumar, S T C.