Graduate Engineers and Vs. C.C.E.

Graduate Engineers and vs C.C.E.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Aug 12, 2004

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/36218

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/36218
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Aug 12, 2004
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

Graduate Engineers and

Respondent

C.C.E.

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(99)ECC20

Excerpt

2. heard departmental representative. the issue involved in this appeal is in regard to the classification of gear ring halves. the revenue classified the gear rings under heading 8483.00 of the central excise tariff, whereas appellants claimed the classification under heading 8417.00 of the central excise tariff as part of the claim.3. we find that issue is already settled by the tribunal in the case of hmt ltd. (machine tool division) v. commissioner of central excise, hyderabad, 2003(151) elt 666 (tri.-bang). in this case the tribunal held that gears rings, even if specially designed for machines, are classifiable under heading 8483 of the central excise tariff. in view of the above decision, we find no merit in the appeal. the appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

2. Heard Departmental Representative. The issue involved in this appeal is in regard to the classification of Gear Ring Halves. The Revenue classified the Gear Rings under Heading 8483.00 of the Central Excise Tariff, whereas appellants claimed the Classification under Heading 8417.00 of the Central Excise Tariff as part of the claim.

3. We find that issue is already settled by the Tribunal in the case of HMT Ltd. (Machine Tool Division) v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad, 2003(151) ELT 666 (Tri.-Bang). In this case the Tribunal held that Gears Rings, even if specially designed for machines, are classifiable under Heading 8483 of the Central Excise Tariff. In view of the above decision, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Graduate Engineers and vs C.C.E. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S Kang, N T C.N.B.