The Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa and anr. Vs. Funskool (India) Ltd. and anr.

.....ch 95.04 of central excise and tariff act, 1985 - matter remitted back to the tribunal with the request to examine as to whether each of the remaining 31 items would stand covered by csh 9504.90 or by csh 9503.00 - land acquisition act (1 of 1894)sections 4, 5-a, 6, 39, 40 & 41: [b.n. agrawal & g.s. singhvi, jj] acquisition of land for company determination of public purpose scope held, where the company was engaged in executing a tourism development project and some plots intervened between the plot on which the hotel building was to be constructed and the plot on which the said amenities and facilities were to be provided, acquisition of such intervening plots for the purpose of making the entire complex one composite unit was closely related to the companys project. hence, it had to be treated as effected under section 40 (1)(aa) and not under section 40 (1)(b) . contents of the notification issued under section 4 and the language of the agreement entered into between the appropriate government and the company under section 41 has to be taken into consideration to reach the conclusion. further, acquisition of land for tourism development project in goa undertaken by the company was certainly for a public purposes . section 40 (1)(aa) & 40 (1)(b): [b.n. agrawal & g.s. singhvi, jj] relative scope conditions for acquisition of land for a company held, in the second part of section 40(1) (a), the legislature has used the expression in any industry or work which is for a public purpose. this means that the particular acquisition can be treated to have been made under that section if it is for construction of some building or work for a company which is engaged or is likely to engage itself in any industry or work which may not necessarily be useful to the public in general. as against this, usefulness of the construction of some work to the general public is sine qua non for acquisition under section 40 (1) (b). - however, we thought.....order1. in view of factual errors committed through oversight in stating particulars of items in dispute (though there is no mistake in recording findings/ conclusion), we recall our order dated 12th november, 2009 in civil appeal nos. 3460-3462 of 2004 in the case of commissioner of central excise, goa and anr. v. funskool (india) ltd. and anr. ('fil' for short).accordingly, ia nos. 8 - 10 of 2009 in civil appeal nos. 3460-3462 of 2004 stand allowed.2. by consent, civil appeal nos. 3460-3462 of 2004 are taken up for hearing and disposed of.3. by our judgment dated 12th november, 2009, in the case of pleasantime products and anr. v. commissioner of central excise, mumbai - i civil appeal nos. 4309-4311 of 2008 this court held that the product 'scrabble/ upwords' is classifiable under csh 9504.90 of the first schedule to the central excise and tariff act, 1985. the said csh 9504.90 comes under ch 95.04 which refers to 'articles for funfair, table or parlour games, including pintables, billiards, special tables for casino games and automatic bowling alley equipment'. in the afore-stated judgment, we have taken the view that the product 'scabble/upwords' falls under ch 95.04 and we have rejected the argument of the assessee that the said product fell under csh 9503.00 which refers to the words 'other toys; reduced-size models; puzzles of all kinds'. the decision in the case of pleasantime products (supra) was given on 12th november, 2009. on that day, the connected matter was fil (supra).4. the appeal filed by the department in the case of fil (supra) dealt with 34 items (and not with 12 items as mentioned in our order dated 12th november, 2009, which is now recalled). we may state that three out of 34 items dealt with scrabble/ upwords, monopoly, snake and ladder. applying our judgment in the case of pleasantime products (supra), we hold that the said three items, namely, snake and ladder, monopoly and scrabble/ upwords stand classifiable under ch 95.04 of central.....