Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Collector of Customs Vs. Navinchandra Premji and Co.

Collector of Customs vs Navinchandra Premji and Co.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 28, 1995
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/9019

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Subject
Customs

Case Summary

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

Customs

Key legal issue
Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of Customs

Respondent

Navinchandra Premji and Co.

Legal References

Reported In
(2002)(146)ELT322TriDel

Excerpt

1. this is a department's appeal against the order of the collector (appeals), bombay dated 3-4-86.2. the respondents have sent a letter dated 18-12-1995 requesting that the case may be decided on merits in view of the order nos.509-510/85-b [1987 (27) e.l.t. 706 (t)] passed in the case of p.r.parekh.3. learned dr stated that this is a case of import of "folleys's baloon catheters" and the issue involved was whether they could be considered as "suction catheters" eligible for benefit in terms of itc policy and the exemption notification no. 208/81.4. the issue is already covered by the orders of the tribunal cited by the respondents, namely, in the case of collector of customs, bombay v.p.r. parekh, bombay reported in 1987 (27) e.l.t. 706 (tribunal). that apart, the issue was also decided in the case of vishal surgical equipment co. v. collector of customs reported in 1991 (55) e.l.t. 393 (tribunal) and instamedic international v. collector of customs, coimbatore reported in 1994 (4) rlt 149 (cegat-b). in these orders, the benefit has been extended and in view thereof, he has nothing further to say.5. we observe that learned dr has very fairly mentioned before us that in all the aforesaid orders, the issue has already been squarely covered holding the importers entitled to the benefit of notification 208/81 as well as of the itc policy under ogl appendix '6'.6. respectfully following the ratio thereof, the appeal of the department is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. This is a Department's appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals), Bombay dated 3-4-86.

2. The respondents have sent a letter dated 18-12-1995 requesting that the case may be decided on merits in view of the Order Nos.

509-510/85-B [1987 (27) E.L.T. 706 (T)] passed in the case of P.R.Parekh.

3. Learned DR stated that this is a case of import of "Folleys's Baloon Catheters" and the issue involved was whether they could be considered as "Suction Catheters" eligible for benefit in terms of ITC Policy and the exemption Notification No. 208/81.

4. The issue is already covered by the orders of the Tribunal cited by the respondents, namely, in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v.P.R. Parekh, Bombay reported in 1987 (27) E.L.T. 706 (Tribunal). That apart, the issue was also decided in the case of Vishal Surgical Equipment Co. v. Collector of Customs reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 393 (Tribunal) and Instamedic International v. Collector of Customs, Coimbatore reported in 1994 (4) RLT 149 (CEGAT-B). In these orders, the benefit has been extended and in view thereof, he has nothing further to say.

5. We observe that learned DR has very fairly mentioned before us that in all the aforesaid orders, the issue has already been squarely covered holding the importers entitled to the benefit of Notification 208/81 as well as of the ITC Policy under OGL Appendix '6'.

6. Respectfully following the ratio thereof, the appeal of the Department is rejected.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial