Collector of Central Excise Vs. Premier Tyres Ltd.

Collector of Central Excise vs Premier Tyres Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 18, 1991

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/6829

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/6829
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: G Agarwal, B T N.K.
Decided On: Dec 18, 1991
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

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Premier Tyres Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(166)ELT100TriDel

Excerpt

.....revenue on this account.3. arguing on the question of the benefit of notification no. 217 of 1986, dated 2-4-1986, shri l.n. murthy, learned jdr, with his usual fairness submitted that the said issue already decided in favour of the assessee by this tribunal. see order no. 521/90-c, dated 24-5-1990, passed in the case of ceat tyres of india ltd. v. collector of central excise, bombay-iii, wherein following the earlier order no. 148/89-c, dated 5-4-1989, passed in the case of bombay tyres international limited v. collector of central excise, bombay-i, it was held that airbags and bladders are inputs used in, or in relation to the manufacture of tyres and the benefit of notification no. 217/86 was admissible. in view of this, shri a.b. verma, manager. administration, submitted that, he is not pressing the relief under notification no.50/67 as the respondents are getting the maximum benefit under the aforesaid notification no. 217/86. after perusing the said order we find that the respondents are entitled for the benefit of notification no. 217/86, dated 2-4-1986 for the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid order no. 521/90-c, dated 24-5-1990.4. needless to say that, the respondents have also filed the cross-objections claiming the benefit of the said notification.5. in the result, the appeal is partly allowed and it is held that the subject goods are classifiable under heading 40.17 and the respondents are entitled for the benefit of notification no. 217/86, dated 2-4-1986. the respondents be granted the consequential relief, if any.cross-objections also stand disposed of accordingly.

Full Judgment

1. The issue involved in the present appeal is two-fold, namely, the correct classification of airbags and bladders, and interpretation of Notification No. 217/86, dated 2-4-1986.

2. Arguing on behalf of the appellants, Shri L.N. Murthy, learned JDR, submitted that the question of classification of the subject goods stands already decided by this Tribunal in the case of the present respondents themselves. See Order No. 670/91-C, dated 19-8-1991 wherein it was held that the subject goods fall under Tariff Item No. 4017.

This position was conceded by Shri A.B. Verma, Manager Administration of the respondents-company. Accordingly, after perusing the said Order we hold that the subject goods fall under Tariff Item 4017 and allow the appeal filed by the Revenue on this account.

3. Arguing on the question of the benefit of Notification No. 217 of 1986, dated 2-4-1986, Shri L.N. Murthy, learned JDR, with his usual fairness submitted that the said issue already decided in favour of the assessee by this Tribunal. See Order No. 521/90-C, dated 24-5-1990, passed in the case of Ceat Tyres of India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-III, wherein following the earlier Order No. 148/89-C, dated 5-4-1989, passed in the case of Bombay Tyres International Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I, it was held that airbags and bladders are inputs used in, or in relation to the manufacture of tyres and the benefit of Notification No. 217/86 was admissible. In view of this, Shri A.B. Verma, Manager. Administration, submitted that, he is not pressing the relief under Notification No.50/67 as the respondents are getting the maximum benefit under the aforesaid Notification No. 217/86. After perusing the said order we find that the respondents are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 217/86, dated 2-4-1986 for the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid Order No. 521/90-C, dated 24-5-1990.

4. Needless to say that, the respondents have also filed the Cross-objections claiming the benefit of the said Notification.

5. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and it is held that the subject goods are classifiable under Heading 40.17 and the respondents are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 217/86, dated 2-4-1986. The respondents be granted the consequential relief, if any.

Cross-objections also stand disposed of accordingly.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Collector of Central Excise vs Premier Tyres Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge G Agarwal, B T N.K.