Collector of Central Excise Vs. Dura Foam Industries

Collector of Central Excise vs Dura Foam Industries

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Oct 20, 1987

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/3893

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/3893
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Oct 20, 1987
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Dura Foam Industries

Legal References

Reported In: (1988)LC425Tri(Delhi)

Excerpt

1. after the delay in filing'the appeal was condoned, the matter being simple and parties having no objection, the appeal itself was taken up for consideration on merits.2. shri g.v. naik, jt. chief departmental representative for the appellants and shri v. lakshmi kumaran, advocate for the respondents were heard and papers perused.3. it is observed that by the impugned order, the collector (appeals) classified top skin, bottom skin, side skin, shreadings and foam cut pieces under sub-heading 3921.90 - other - residuary item. we observe that for this waste and scrap, heading 39.15, sub-heading 3915.00 "waste, paring and scrap of plastics" is specifically there in central excise tariff act, 1985 and this should have been the proper classification. in fact, shri lakshmi kumaran, advocate for the respondents also agrees that this would be the proper classification of the goods in question.4. we, therefore, set aside the classification of top skin, bottom skin, side skin, shreadings and foam cut pieces under heading 3921.90 and substitute sub-heading 3915.00 of the tariff act for the same. the order is modified to this extent. the appeal is thus allowed.

Full Judgment

1. After the delay in filing'the appeal was condoned, the matter being simple and parties having no objection, the appeal itself was taken up for consideration on merits.

2. Shri G.V. Naik, Jt. Chief Departmental Representative for the appellants and Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Advocate for the respondents were heard and papers perused.

3. It is observed that by the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) classified Top skin, Bottom skin, Side skin, Shreadings and Foam Cut pieces under sub-heading 3921.90 - Other - Residuary item. We observe that for this waste and scrap, Heading 39.15, sub-heading 3915.00 "Waste, paring and scrap of plastics" is specifically there in Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and this should have been the proper classification. In fact, Shri Lakshmi Kumaran, Advocate for the respondents also agrees that this would be the proper classification of the goods in question.

4. We, therefore, set aside the classification of Top Skin, Bottom Skin, Side Skin, Shreadings and Foam Cut pieces under heading 3921.90 and substitute sub-heading 3915.00 of the Tariff Act for the same. The order is modified to this extent. The appeal is thus allowed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Collector of Central Excise vs Dura Foam Industries Same Subject Education