Commissioner of Customs Vs. Devanshi Impex P. Ltd.

Commissioner of Customs vs Devanshi Impex P. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Oct 30, 2006

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/43957

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/43957
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, Vice-, A T K.K.
Decided On: Oct 30, 2006
Subject: Customs

Case Summary

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

Customs

Key legal issue: Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Customs

Respondent

Devanshi Impex P. Ltd.

Excerpt

1. the revenue seeks stay of operation of the order of the commissioner (appeals) who has accepted the contention of the respondent/importers for classification of thiourea 99% minimum' under cth 29039010 setting aside the adjudication order by which the goods were classified as insecticide under cth 3808.2. we have heard both sides. we find that the commissioner (appeals) has noted that thiourea 99%' is specifically covered by the tariff entry under chapter 29 under heading 290390301. the judgment of the apex court in the case of union of india v. pesticides mfg. formulators association of india which is relied upon by the revenue in the present appeal and application does not cover, prima fade, "thiourea 99%, an item which is specifically covered under the tariff entry and therefore, prima facie, there is no ground to interfere with the commissioner (appeals) order of classification which is to be determined when the appeal is taken up for regular hearing and not at this stage in view of the specific tariff entry, prima facie, covering the product in dispute under chapter 29. we, therefore, see no ground for granting the prayer for stay of operation of the impugned order and accordingly reject the same.

Full Judgment

1. The Revenue seeks stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has accepted the contention of the respondent/importers for classification of Thiourea 99% minimum' under CTH 29039010 setting aside the adjudication order by which the goods were classified as insecticide under CTH 3808.

2. We have heard both sides. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that Thiourea 99%' is specifically covered by the tariff entry under Chapter 29 under heading 290390301. The judgment of the apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Pesticides Mfg. Formulators Association of India which is relied upon by the Revenue in the present appeal and application does not cover, prima fade, "Thiourea 99%, an item which is specifically covered under the tariff entry and therefore, prima facie, there is no ground to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) order of classification which is to be determined when the appeal is taken up for regular hearing and not at this stage in view of the specific tariff entry, prima facie, covering the product in dispute under Chapter 29. We, therefore, see no ground for granting the prayer for stay of operation of the impugned order and accordingly reject the same.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Customs vs Devanshi Impex P. Ltd. Same Subject Customs Same Judge J Balasundaram, Vice-, A T K.K.