Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pbj Industrial Electronics Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Pbj Industrial Electronics Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jun 08, 2004

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/35556

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/35556
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, A M Moheb
Decided On: Jun 08, 2004
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

Pbj Industrial Electronics Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(170)ELT412Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the issue of classification of the item called 'corona treater' arises for determination in the present appeal. according to the revenue it falls for classification under ceta subheading 8477.10 while the commissioner (appeals) has upheld the classification of the machine tinder ceta sub-heading 8477.90.2. on hearing both sides and noting that the respondents accept that the classification would be under ceta sub-heading 8477.10 nothing further is required to be gone into by us. we therefore hold that the department's contention that the items falls for classification under heading 8477.10 is correct, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The issue of classification of the item called 'Corona Treater' arises for determination in the present appeal. According to the Revenue it falls for classification under CETA subheading 8477.10 while the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the classification of the machine tinder CETA sub-heading 8477.90.

2. On hearing both sides and noting that the respondents accept that the classification would be under CETA sub-heading 8477.10 nothing further is required to be gone into by us. We therefore hold that the department's contention that the items falls for classification under Heading 8477.10 is correct, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Pbj Industrial Electronics ... Same Subject Excise Same Judge J Balasundaram, A M Moheb