Collector of Central Excise Vs. India Waterproofing and Dying Works - Court Judgment |
| Excise |
| Supreme Court of India |
| Sep-18-1996 |
| S.P. Bharucha and; K. Venkataswami, JJ. |
| 1996(87)ELT340(SC); (1997)10SCC225; [2003]132STC99(SC) |
| Collector of Central Excise |
| India Waterproofing and Dying Works |
| Appeal dismissed |
excise - classification - section 35l of central excise act, 1994 - appeal filed in supreme court against tribunal's decision of classifying goods of respondent as ready-to-wear garments - appellant contended respondent changed his stand that his goods not classifiable as ready-to-wear garments without producing any evidence in support of same - supreme court observed that reasonable approach has been adopted by tribunal while classifying goods - no interference in same required and appeal dismissed.
- code of civil procedure, 1908.[c.a. no. 5/1908]. order 39, rules 1 & 2: [b.p. singh & h.s. bedi, jj] grant of injunction - infringement of trademark and copyright trademark in question used by predecessors of plaintiff since 1940 challenge is to identical mark and packaging used by defendant from the year 2000 suit filed in the year 2003 held, it is not a ground for refusal to exercise discretion in favour of claim for interim relief. in the instant case supreme court granted interim injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from using the trademark glucose-d.order1. the customs, excise and gold (control) appellate tribunal has accepted the respondent's contention and classified the raincoats and caps made by the respondent within item 22d of the central excise tariff. that refers to 'articles of ready to wear apparel (known commercially as ready-made garments)'. learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the fact that the respondent had taken the stand earlier that the raincoats and caps were not classifiable under item 22d and had changed the stand only after the residuary tariff item 68 was introduced. he submitted that while it was open to the respondent to change the stand, it had not produced any evidence of the trade to support the changed stand.2. in our view, plainly, a reasonable approach has been adopted by the tribunal in classifying raincoats and caps as articles of ready to wear apparel (known commercially as ready-made garments) and no interference with the classification is called for.3. the appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
ORDER
1. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal has accepted the respondent's contention and classified the raincoats and caps made by the respondent within Item 22D of the Central Excise Tariff. That refers to 'articles of ready to wear apparel (known commercially as ready-made garments)'. Learned Counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the fact that the respondent had taken the stand earlier that the raincoats and caps were not classifiable under Item 22D and had changed the stand only after the residuary Tariff Item 68 was introduced. He submitted that while it was open to the respondent to change the stand, it had not produced any evidence of the trade to support the changed stand.
2. In our view, plainly, a reasonable approach has been adopted by the Tribunal in classifying raincoats and caps as articles of ready to wear apparel (known commercially as ready-made garments) and no interference with the classification is called for.
3. The appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs.