Subbiah Foundry Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Subbiah Foundry vs Collector of C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Oct 05, 1987

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/3857

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/3857
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Oct 05, 1987
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Subbiah Foundry

Respondent

Collector of C. Ex.

Legal References

Reported In: (1989)(42)ELT102TriDel

Excerpt

1. the learned counsel for m/s. subbiah foundry, coimbatore, requested condonation of the delay of 1 month 19 days in filing this appeal.after hearing both sides, we condoned the delay and proceeded to hear the case on merits.2. mr. tankala learned counsel for m/s. subbiah foundry, coimbatore, said he adopted all the arguments advanced on behalf of m/s. texino industries, coimbatore, in appeal no. e. 1904/83-b1.3. the learned sdr for his part said his arguments would be the same as in the.4. in the texmo appeal e. 1904/83-b1, we announced our judgment in order no. 569/87-b1 dated 31-8-1987 and held that the rotor and the stator of a monoblock pump were parts of an electric pump and were classifiable under item 30-d. we rule similarly here and reject this appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The learned counsel for M/s. Subbiah Foundry, Coimbatore, requested condonation of the delay of 1 month 19 days in filing this appeal.

After hearing both sides, we condoned the delay and proceeded to hear the case on merits.

2. Mr. Tankala learned counsel for M/s. Subbiah Foundry, Coimbatore, said he adopted all the arguments advanced on behalf of M/s. Texino Industries, Coimbatore, in Appeal No. E. 1904/83-B1.

3. The learned SDR for his part said his arguments would be the same as in the.

4. In the Texmo Appeal E. 1904/83-B1, we announced our judgment in order No. 569/87-B1 dated 31-8-1987 and held that the rotor and the stator of a monoblock pump were parts of an electric pump and were classifiable under Item 30-D. We rule similarly here and reject this appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Subbiah Foundry vs Collector of C. Ex. Same Subject Excise