Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Delta Electronics

Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. vs Delta Electronics

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Mar 22, 2006
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/42230

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Customs

Case Summary

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

Customs

Key legal issue
Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Respondent

Delta Electronics

Excerpt

1. heard both sides. revenue filed this application for stay of operation of the impugned order.2. respondents made import of as part of compact fluorescent lamps (chc). commissioner in the impugned order held that anti-dumping duty was leviable in respect of cfc with choke or without choke. the goods in question which are imported by the respondent are only one part of cfc and it cannot be said to be a cfc with or without choke. in view of this finding, we find no merit in this application. the same is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. Heard both sides. Revenue filed this application for stay of operation of the impugned order.

2. Respondents made import of as part of Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CHC). Commissioner in the impugned order held that anti-dumping duty was leviable in respect of CFC with Choke or without Choke. The goods in question which are imported by the respondent are only one part of CFC and it cannot be said to be a CFC with or without choke. In view of this finding, we find no merit in this application. The same is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial