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 C. Ex. Vs. Leak-proof Engineering (i) Pvt.

Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Leak-proof Engineering (i) Pvt.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Oct 03, 2006
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/43782
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

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Respondent

Leak-proof Engineering (i) Pvt.

Bonus Feature

AI Brief & Ask

Part of AI Studio: get a comprehensive 18-section AI Brief and case-scoped chat on this judgment, plus Verdict Lens, Devil's Bench, and DocMind from the AI Studio hub.

Log in to unlock AI Studio

Subscribers get structured AI Briefs and case-scoped chat. Learn more.

Excerpt

.....counsel for the respondents that the product in question is not an article of graphite and, therefore, is not ruled out from classification under chapter 84, for the reason that it is made of cotton threads dipped in graphite solution, is not acceptable for the reason that there is no material on record to show that the product in dispute, viz. grafoil, is anything other than an article of graphite and indeed throughout the proceedings before the adjudicating authority as well as the lower appellate authority, the contention of the manufacturers (the respondents herein) has been that grafoil is an article of graphite. however, the benefit of cum-duty price is to be extended to the respondents.4. in the result, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals in the above terms.

Full Judgment

1. In these appeals arising out of two separate orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), the Revenue seeks classification of product "Grafoil" consisting of graphite tapes, packing rings and gaskets under CET sub-heading 6807.00 as articles of graphite, as against the Commissioner (Appeals)'s classification of the product as parts of pumps under CET sub-heading 8413.90.Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CC, Bombay , holding that Karbate tubes made of artificial graphite impregnated with phenolic resin and which are parts of heat exchangers are classifiable under CTA Heading 6815.10 as non-electrical articles of artificial graphite or other carbons, in view of Chapter Note l(a) to Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff which excludes articles falling under Chapter 68 from coverage under Chapter 84, we hold that the product in dispute is required to be classified under the heading claimed by the Revenue, viz. under CET sub-heading 6807.00. The submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the product in question is not an article of graphite and, therefore, is not ruled out from classification under Chapter 84, for the reason that it is made of cotton threads dipped in graphite solution, is not acceptable for the reason that there is no material on record to show that the product in dispute, viz. Grafoil, is anything other than an article of graphite and indeed throughout the proceedings before the adjudicating authority as well as the lower appellate authority, the contention of the manufacturers (the respondents herein) has been that Grafoil is an article of graphite. However, the benefit of cum-duty price is to be extended to the respondents.

4. In the result, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals in the above terms.


Save Judgments · Add Notes · Store Search Results · Organize Client Files

Start your Free Trial