Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ivp Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs ivp Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 31, 2008

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/47162

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/47162
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, Vice, S T A.K.
Decided On: Mar 31, 2008
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

ivp Ltd.

Excerpt

1. we have heard both sides on the appeals filed by the revenue against the classification of ceramic nozzles manufactured by the respondents herein under heading 8515.00 of the central excise tariff act, 1985, setting aside the demand confirmed by the assistant commissioner on the basis of classification of the goods under sub heading 6901.00 of the central excise tariff act, 1985.ntb hitech ceramics v. cce holding that the goods fell for classification under sub heading 8515.00 is no longer good law as it has been overruled by the larger bench of the tribunal in the assessee's own case as seen from 2004 (173) elt 128 (tri.-lb) in which it has been held that ceramic nozzles are classifiable under chapter heading 69.01 of the central excise tariff act, 1985. although the decision of the larger bench of the tribunal in the above case has been challenged before the apex court, the operation of the larger bench decision has not been stayed. therefore, following the ratio of the decision of the larger bench of the tribunal cited supra, we uphold the demand which is result of classification under chapter heading 69.01 of the central excise tariff act, 1985 and allow the appeals of the revenue.

Full Judgment

1. We have heard both sides on the appeals filed by the Revenue against the classification of ceramic nozzles manufactured by the respondents herein under heading 8515.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, setting aside the demand confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner on the basis of classification of the goods under sub heading 6901.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.NTB Hitech Ceramics v. CCE holding that the goods fell for classification under sub heading 8515.00 is no longer good law as it has been overruled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case as seen from 2004 (173) ELT 128 (Tri.-LB) in which it has been held that ceramic nozzles are classifiable under Chapter heading 69.01 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Although the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the above case has been challenged before the Apex Court, the operation of the Larger Bench decision has not been stayed. Therefore, following the ratio of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal cited supra, we uphold the demand which is result of classification under chapter heading 69.01 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and allow the appeals of the Revenue.

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

Service Tax Has been Good law E la