Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. A.J. Industries

Commissioner of Central Excise vs A.J. Industries

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jun 17, 2005

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39391

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/39391
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, Vice, A M Moheb
Decided On: Jun 17, 2005
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

A.J. Industries

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(188)ELT428Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the issue for determination in this appeal is correct classification of "horn button assembly manufactured and cleared by the respondent herein during the period in dispute. according to the department, the goods are in nature of signaling equipment covered by ceta sub-heading 8512.00 and not under sub-heading 8708.00 as held by the lower appellate authority as parts of motor vehicle.2. none appears for the respondent in spite of notices. we have heard the ld dr and perused the records. as per section note 2(a) of section xvi of the central excise tariff act, 1985 covering chapters 84 & 85, it is observed that parts, which are goods included in any of the heading of chapter 84 or 85 (other than heading 84.85 and 85.48) are in all cases to be classified in their respective heading. the goods are signaling, wind screen, wiping equipment used for cycles or motor vehicles" by virtue of note 2(a) of section xvi. the goods would therefore be covered under cet sub-heading 8512.00, in the light of the tribunal's decision in the case of shaun products v. collector - 1997 (96) elt 184 (tri.) approved by the larger bench in the case of commissioner of central excise, mumbai-i v. unicon connectors (p) ltd - 2001 (131) elt 604.

Full Judgment

1. The issue for determination in this appeal is correct classification of "Horn Button Assembly manufactured and cleared by the respondent herein during the period in dispute. According to the Department, the goods are in nature of signaling equipment covered by CETA sub-heading 8512.00 and not under sub-heading 8708.00 as held by the lower appellate authority as parts of motor vehicle.

2. None appears for the respondent in spite of notices. We have heard the Ld DR and perused the records. As per Section Note 2(a) of Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 covering chapters 84 & 85, it is observed that parts, which are goods included in any of the heading of chapter 84 or 85 (other than heading 84.85 and 85.48) are in all cases to be classified in their respective heading. The goods are signaling, wind screen, wiping equipment used for cycles or motor vehicles" by virtue of Note 2(a) of Section XVI. The goods would therefore be covered under CET sub-heading 8512.00, in the light of the tribunal's decision in the case of Shaun Products v. Collector - 1997 (96) ELT 184 (Tri.) approved by the Larger bench in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I v. Unicon Connectors (P) Ltd - 2001 (131) ELT 604.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs A.J. Industries Same Subject Excise Same Judge J Balasundaram, Vice, A M Moheb