Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. B.R. Traders (P) Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs B.R. Traders (P) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 10, 2005

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/38051

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/38051
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, M T K.C.
Decided On: Feb 10, 2005
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

B.R. Traders (P) Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(184)ELT182TriDel

Excerpt

1. heard both sides. the revenue filed these appeals against the order-in-appeals passed by the commissioner (appeals) whereby interleave carbon paper was held to be classified under heading 48.20 of the central excise act. the contention of the revenue is that it is a simple carbon paper and is classifiable under heading 48.16 on the ground that in the bills the respondents mentioned the items as interleaved carbon sets whereas the heading 48.20 covers interleaved carbon sets. the contention of the respondent is that the revenue has not disputed that goods are used as computer stationery and it is used as interleaved carbon. we find that revenue is not disputing the fact that carbon in question is used as computer stationery in sets and it is used as interleaved carbons sets of computer stationery. therefore, if the respondents have mentioned only interleaved and not interleave carbon sets, the carbon paper in question cannot be held to be classifiable under heading 48.20 of the central excise tariff.2. in view of the above, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the commissioner (appeals) and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. Heard both sides. The Revenue filed these appeals against the order-in-appeals passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby interleave carbon paper was held to be classified under Heading 48.20 of the Central Excise Act. The contention of the Revenue is that it is a simple carbon paper and is classifiable under Heading 48.16 on the ground that in the bills the respondents mentioned the items as interleaved carbon sets whereas the Heading 48.20 covers interleaved carbon sets. The contention of the Respondent is that the Revenue has not disputed that goods are used as computer stationery and it is used as interleaved carbon. We find that Revenue is not disputing the fact that carbon in question is used as computer stationery in sets and it is used as interleaved carbons sets of computer stationery. Therefore, if the respondents have mentioned only interleaved and not interleave carbon sets, the carbon paper in question cannot be held to be classifiable under Heading 48.20 of the Central Excise Tariff.

2. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs B.R. Traders (P) Ltd. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge S Kang, M T K.C.