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.

Advanced Graphic Systems Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Airport

Advanced Graphic Systems vs Commissioner of Customs, Airport

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Apr 02, 2004
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/34834

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
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Advanced Graphic Systems

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs, Airport

Excerpt

1. after hearing for simetime, and after waiver of pre deposit, with the consent of both sides, we take up the appeal itself for disposal.2. the period of demand in this case from july 2000 to september 2000 by a show cause notice issued on 30.7.2002 for the goods "b.t.tintmaster dispensers" used for dispensing colour by pumping and classification under heading 841300 claimed by the appellants and approved by the custom house, after examination of the catalogues and the products under import, has been set aside by the impugned order, by bringing the classification under heading 84.79 in consequential liabilities on the appellants. the learned advocate for the appellants has drawn our attention to the fact that at jawaharlal nehru port trust, nhava sheva and sahar airport, mumbai the subject goods have been classified under heading 8413.00 and those classifications have been upheld by revenue inasmuch as they have not been challenged and he relies upon the supreme court decision in the case of damodar j.malpani v. cce 2002 (146) elt 483 (sc) wherein the court had held that "in the interest of uniformity, the tribunal should have called upon revenue authorities to explain why the products of two manufacturers have been classified differently without any chemical analysis", would call for remitting this matter back to the original authority to bring on record as to how the present appellants' orders are different from the products in the case of the imports being accepted under heading 84.13.00 at jnpt and sahar airport, mumbai.3. we find force in the argument of the learned advocate for the appellants and following the ratio of the supreme court's decision in the case above, we would also direct the authority concerned to obtain materials, find out the difference, if any, and only thereafter proceed to classify the products under the appropriate heading bringing out under heading 8413.00 in this case.

Full Judgment

1. After hearing for simetime, and after waiver of pre deposit, with the consent of both sides, we take up the appeal itself for disposal.

2. The period of demand in this case from July 2000 to September 2000 by a Show Cause Notice issued on 30.7.2002 for the goods "B.T.Tintmaster Dispensers" used for dispensing colour by pumping and classification under Heading 841300 claimed by the appellants and approved by the Custom House, after examination of the catalogues and the products under import, has been set aside by the impugned order, by bringing the classification under Heading 84.79 in consequential liabilities on the appellants. The learned Advocate for the appellants has drawn our attention to the fact that at Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Nhava Sheva and Sahar Airport, Mumbai the subject goods have been classified under Heading 8413.00 and those classifications have been upheld by Revenue inasmuch as they have not been challenged and he relies upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Damodar J.Malpani v. CCE 2002 (146) ELT 483 (SC) wherein the Court had held that "In the interest of uniformity, the Tribunal should have called upon revenue authorities to explain why the products of two manufacturers have been classified differently without any chemical analysis", would call for remitting this matter back to the original authority to bring on record as to how the present appellants' orders are different from the products in the case of the imports being accepted under Heading 84.13.00 at JNPT and Sahar Airport, Mumbai.

3. We find force in the argument of the learned Advocate for the appellants and following the ratio of the Supreme Court's decision in the case above, we would also direct the authority concerned to obtain materials, find out the difference, if any, and only thereafter proceed to classify the products under the appropriate heading bringing out under Heading 8413.00 in this case.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial