Pragati Computers Vs. Collector of Customs

Pragati Computers vs Collector of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Sep 08, 1987

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/3793

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/3793
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Sep 08, 1987
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pragati Computers

Respondent

Collector of Customs

Legal References

Reported In: (1989)(42)ELT256TriDel

Excerpt

.....has earlier considered the question of extending the benefit of the exemption notification to winchester drive. as the goods in question are also winchester drive, the ratio of earlier judgment of the tribunal should be applied and the benefit of notification 237/83-cus.should be extended to them. shri j. gopinath, ld. sdr agreed that the goods are covered by the earlier judgment but submitted that he repeats the arguments which he advanced in the earlier appeal cited by the ld.advocate for the appellants. this judgment was in infosys consultant private ltd. v. collector of customs 3. we have considered the arguments of both sides and have perused our earlier judgment cited by the ld. advocate.em electronics (em electronics pvt. ltd. v. collector of customs, order no. 421 of 87-b2, dated 23-8-1987). we have perused that order also and note that the ld. sdr's arguments were rejected in that appeal.4. following the ratio of the earlier judgments of the tribunal we reject shri j. gopinath's arguments and hold that the ratio of the judgment should be applied to the present appeal also. we order that winchester drives imported by the appellants should be extended the benefit of notification 237 of 1983 and that consequential relief should be granted to them by way of either non-enforcement of the demand or refund if the differential duty had been paid. we allow this appeal in these terms.

Full Judgment

1. The question that arises for decision in this appeal is the classification of 19MB Winchester Drive and 40MB Winchester Drive which were imported under Bill of Entry No. AC 260 dated 13-11-1984. The goods were originally assessed to duty under heading 84.51(55)(2) and 85.10(27) along with benefit of a customs notification. Subsequently a demand was issued for differential duty on the ground that the goods were not eligible to the concessional rates under the Notification. The Asstt. Collector confirmed the demand and the appeal before the Appellate Collector failed. Hence the present appeal.

2. Shri V. Laxmikumaran, Ld. Advocate submitted that the Tribunal has earlier considered the question of extending the benefit of the exemption Notification to Winchester Drive. As the goods in question are also Winchester Drive, the ratio of earlier judgment of the Tribunal should be applied and the benefit of Notification 237/83-Cus.

should be extended to them. Shri J. Gopinath, Ld. SDR agreed that the goods are covered by the earlier judgment but submitted that he repeats the arguments which he advanced in the earlier appeal cited by the Ld.

Advocate for the appellants. This judgment was in Infosys Consultant Private Ltd. v. Collector of Customs 3. We have considered the arguments of both sides and have perused our earlier judgment cited by the Ld. Advocate.EM Electronics (EM Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Order No. 421 of 87-B2, dated 23-8-1987). We have perused that order also and note that the Ld. SDR's arguments were rejected in that appeal.

4. Following the ratio of the earlier judgments of the Tribunal we reject Shri J. Gopinath's arguments and hold that the ratio of the judgment should be applied to the present appeal also. We order that Winchester Drives imported by the appellants should be extended the benefit of Notification 237 of 1983 and that consequential relief should be granted to them by way of either non-enforcement of the demand or refund if the differential duty had been paid. We allow this appeal in these terms.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Pragati Computers vs Collector of Customs Same Subject Excise