Technocraft Industries Vs. Cce

Technocraft Industries vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 04, 1991

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/6806

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/6806
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: H Chander, Vice, K T P.K.
Decided On: Dec 04, 1991
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Technocraft Industries

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (1992)(41)LC299Tri(Delhi)

Excerpt

.....and the revenue authorities had resorted to section 11 a. in support of his arguments he cited a decision in the case elmond (sic) (p) ltd. v. cce . he pleaded for the rejection of the stay 3. we have heard both the sides and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. in the present matter the classification list was approved on 4.2.1987. we note that there is no change of law in respect of classification, only there is a change of opinion by the revenue authorities which led to the present demand. the matter is sub judice, further observation on merits will not be proper. in view of the decision of the supreme court in the case of indian oxygen ltd. 1991 (51) elt 1030, wherein the honourable supreme court had held as under: this is an appeal against the decision of the customs, excise & gold (control) appellate tribunal dated 27th january, 1988 under section 35l(b) of the central excises and salt act, 1944. in view of the facts and the circumstances as enumerated in the judgment of the tribunal in paragraph 4 onwards, we are of the opinion that the decision of the tribunal is correct. in the premises there is no merit in these appeals. the appeals must fail and are, therefore, dismissed accordingly. the question involved before the appellate tribunal was about the classification of mw1 wires (i.e. wires with copper) under tariff item 68 or item 50 of the erstwhile central excise tariff of india. the appellate tribunal without expressing any opinion as to the classification of the goods held that the re-classification of goods if any, can only be done prospectively particularly when there has been a long standing practice for classifying the product under a particular heading.we are of the view that if the applicants are desired to deposit rs. 86,750/- it will amount to undue hardship. we dispense with pre-deposit of the said amount and further order that during the pendency of the appeal the revenue authorities shall not pursue the recovery.....

Full Judgment

1. By the present application the applicants have made a prayer for dispensing with pre-deposit of differential excise duty amounting to Rs. 86,750/-. Shri Gopal Prasad, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the applicants. He stated that the period involved is 1.11.1986 to 31.5.1987 and the show cause notice is dated 4.6.1987. He pleaded that the applicants had been filing classification list regularly and they filed the last classification list on April, 1986 which was approved on 4.2.1987. He argued, that if at all the Revenue proposes to change the classification it can be changed prospectively and not retrospectively. In support of his arguments he relied on a decision in the case of Breaks (sic) India Ltd. and Ors. v. CCE , and thereafter Anr. decision of theCollector of Central Excise v. Indian Oxygen Ltd. reported in 1991 (51) ELT A-36 wherein the appellate Tribunal without expressing any opinion as to the classification of goods held that the re-classification of goods if any, can only be done prospectively particularly when there has been a long stand practice for classifying the product under a particular heading. Shri Gopal Prasad pleaded to affirm the view of the Tribunal. Shri Gopal Prasad further pleaded for the grant of stay.

2. Shri M.S. Arora, learned JDR appeared on behalf of the respondent.

He stated that the provisions of Section 11A are independent and the Revenue authorities had resorted to Section 11 A. In support of his arguments he cited a decision in the case Elmond (sic) (P) Ltd. v. CCE . He pleaded for the rejection of the stay 3. We have heard both the sides and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present matter the classification list was approved on 4.2.1987. We note that there is no change of law in respect of classification, only there is a change of opinion by the Revenue authorities which led to the present demand. The matter is sub judice, further observation on merits will not be proper. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oxygen Ltd. 1991 (51) ELT 1030, wherein the honourable Supreme Court had held as under: This is an appeal against the decision of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal dated 27th January, 1988 under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

In view of the facts and the circumstances as enumerated in the judgment of the tribunal in paragraph 4 onwards, we are of the opinion that the decision of the tribunal is correct. In the premises there is no merit in these appeals. The appeals must fail and are, therefore, dismissed accordingly.

The question involved before the Appellate Tribunal was about the classification of MW1 wires (i.e. wires with copper) under Tariff Item 68 or Item 50 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff of India.

The Appellate Tribunal without expressing any opinion as to the classification of the goods held that the re-classification of goods if any, can only be done prospectively particularly when there has been a long standing practice for classifying the product under a particular heading.

We are of the view that if the applicants are desired to deposit Rs. 86,750/- it will amount to undue hardship. We dispense with pre-deposit of the said amount and further order that during the pendency of the appeal the Revenue authorities shall not pursue the recovery proceedings. Shri Gopal Prasad also pleaded that in respect of classification appeal No. E/1402/89-B1 is pending. He pleaded that both the appeals be heard together. Shri Arora does not object. We direct the registry to list both the appeals as and when their truth comes.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Technocraft Industries vs Cce Same Subject Excise Same Judge H Chander, Vice, K T P.K.