B. Square Electronics Vs. the Commissioner of Central

B. Square Electronics vs The Commissioner of Central

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Aug 31, 2006

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/43559

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/43559
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: A Wadhwa, S T S.S.
Decided On: Aug 31, 2006
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

B. Square Electronics

Respondent

The Commissioner of Central

Legal References

Reported In: (2006)(113)ECC546

Excerpt

1. the dispute in the present appeal is as regards the correct classification of the appellant's products called by "degaussing coils". whereas the appellant claimed the classification under heading 8929.00, revenue's claim is under heading 8544.00. originally, the assistant commissioner accepted the appellant's contention on the ground that such coils are specifically used in tv sets, and as such, has to he classified as a part of tv falling under heading 8529.00. on appeal by the revenue, the commissioner (appeals) reversed the above order of the assistant commissioner. hence the present appeal.2. after hearing both sides, we find that the appellant's main contention is that "degaussing coils" has the effect of neutralizing the magnetic field generated during the start of the television set otherwise there will be colour patch on the colour tv screen. to remove this colour patch, degaussing coil is placed around the picture tube inside the-colour tv. hence it is a part of a colour tv set.3. however, we find that the above submissions made by the ld. advocate are not supported by any documentary evidence or expert's opinion. as regards the nature and function of the products in question, we feel that while deciding the classification of the product, which is technical in nature, the same is required to be established with the help of expert's opinion, for which purpose, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for denovo decision. both sides are at liberty to produce evidence in support of their claim.

Full Judgment

1. The dispute in the present appeal is as regards the correct classification of the appellant's products called by "Degaussing Coils". Whereas the appellant claimed the classification under heading 8929.00, revenue's claim is under heading 8544.00. Originally, the Assistant Commissioner accepted the appellant's contention on the ground that such Coils are specifically used in TV Sets, and as such, has to he classified as a part of TV falling under heading 8529.00. On appeal by the revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the above order of the Assistant Commissioner. Hence the present appeal.

2. After hearing both sides, we find that the appellant's main contention is that "Degaussing Coils" has the effect of neutralizing the magnetic field generated during the start of the Television Set otherwise there will be colour patch on the colour TV screen. To remove this colour patch, degaussing coil is placed around the picture tube inside the-Colour TV. Hence it is a part of a Colour TV Set.

3. However, we find that the above submissions made by the Ld. Advocate are not supported by any documentary evidence or expert's opinion. As regards the nature and function of the products in question, we feel that while deciding the classification of the product, which is technical in nature, the same is required to be established with the help of expert's opinion, for which purpose, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for denovo decision. Both sides are at liberty to produce evidence in support of their claim.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties B. Square Electronics vs The Commissioner of Central Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge A Wadhwa, S T S.S.