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.

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
CiteSignal

Log in to get a daily email when new judgments cite this order.

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

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

B. Square Electronics

Respondent

The Commissioner of Central

Legal References

Reported In
(2006)(113)ECC546
Bonus Feature

AI Brief & Ask

Your first-pass case note in minutes — an 18-section AI Brief on this judgment, plus case-scoped chat. Part of AI Studio with Verdict Lens, Devil's Bench, and DocMind.

Try free for 7 days

Credentials emailed — then log in for AI Brief on this judgment. Already have an account? · Learn more

Excerpt

.....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.


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial