Eta Engineering Private Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai

Eta Engineering Private Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai Decided Oct 06, 2010

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/943380

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/943380
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Judge: The Honourable Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President &Amp; the Honourable Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member
Decided On: Oct 06, 2010
Case Number: Appeal No.E/723 of 2003
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

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

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Eta Engineering Private Ltd

Advocate Shri Muthu Venkatraman, Advocate. Ms. Uma Maheswari, Advocate. Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai

Excerpt

per jyoti balasundaram 1. the issue in dispute in the present appeal namely classification of “ducts” manufactured out of g.i. sheets stands settled by the decision of the tribunal in the assessee’s own case reported in 2006 (197) elt 372 which has been upheld by the apex court by rejection of the revenue’s appeal against the tribunal’s order, as seen from 2006 (200) a138 (sc). it has been held that goods in question, which are identical to the goods in the present case, fall for classification under heading 73.08 as part and parcel of the air-conditioning system as claimed by the assessees. the result of classification under heading 73.08 is that goods would be exempt from payment of duty. although the commissioner in the present impugned order has held that classification will be under heading 73.04, in view of the apex court’s decision cited supra, we do not uphold the classification under heading 73.04 but under heading 73.08. 2. the appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

Full Judgment

Per Jyoti Balasundaram

1. The issue in dispute in the present appeal namely classification of “ducts” manufactured out of G.I. sheets stands settled by the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case reported in 2006 (197) ELT 372 which has been upheld by the apex court by rejection of the Revenue’s appeal against the Tribunal’s order, as seen from 2006 (200) A138 (SC). It has been held that goods in question, which are identical to the goods in the present case, fall for classification under Heading 73.08 as part and parcel of the air-conditioning system as claimed by the assessees. The result of classification under Heading 73.08 is that goods would be exempt from payment of duty. Although the Commissioner in the present impugned order has held that classification will be under Heading 73.04, in view of the apex court’s decision cited supra, we do not uphold the classification under Heading 73.04 but under Heading 73.08.

2. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chen... Same Parties Eta Engineering Private Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise... Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge The Honourable Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President &Amp; t...