Collector of Customs Vs. Indo Swing Ltd.

Collector of Customs vs indo Swing Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 22, 1996

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/9782

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/9782
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Jul 22, 1996
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

indo Swing Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (1996)(86)ELT654TriDel

Excerpt

.....function.2. the learned dr appearing for the department relied on the technical details of the machine to argue that the machine performs the process of electro plating and hence the classification adopted by the collector (appeals) is not appropriate.3. the learned advocate submitted that in their own case the tribunal has finally concluded the issue as per final order no. c/79/94-b2, dated 30-9-1994 and in which the tribunal has gone into the entire technical details cccn explanatory notes and other tariff entries to hold that the impugned machine is classifiable only under sub-heading 84.59(2) of the erstwhile tariff. he submits that the points raised by the learned dr has also been answered and as the ratio is fully applicable to the facts of the case, the revenue appeal is required to be rejected.4. we have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides.on a perusal of the citation referred to by the learned advocate as in the case of harbans lal malhotra & sons v. collector of customs as per final order no. c/79/94-b, dated 30-9-1994, the tribunal has dealt with the same machine as in the present case and has considered the material on record including cccn explanatory notes and have come to the conclusion that the most appropriate heading for classification is sub-heading 84.59(2) of the erstwhile tariff. we find that there is no reason to differ from the citation relied by the learned advocate and applying the ratio thereof, we dismiss this appeal.

Full Judgment

1. This is a Revenue appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals), Bombay. The importers imported Razor Blade Coater and claimed the classification under sub-heading No. 84.59(2) of the erstwhile Tariff while the lower authorities assessed the same under sub-heading No. 85.18/27(1) of the erstwhile Customs Tariff. The Collector (Appeals) after careful consideration of the catalogue/literature/technical write- up and after considering the BTN (CCCN) upheld the importer's contention for classification under sub-heading 84.59(2) of the erstwhile Tariff. Hence the Revenue is in appeal. The Assistant Collector had proceeded to classify the machine under Chapter sub-heading 85.18/27(1) on the ground that the machine is having an individual function.

2. The learned DR appearing for the department relied on the technical details of the machine to argue that the machine performs the process of electro plating and hence the classification adopted by the Collector (Appeals) is not appropriate.

3. The learned Advocate submitted that in their own case the Tribunal has finally concluded the issue as per Final Order No. C/79/94-B2, dated 30-9-1994 and in which the Tribunal has gone into the entire technical details CCCN Explanatory Notes and other Tariff Entries to hold that the impugned machine is classifiable only under sub-heading 84.59(2) of the erstwhile Tariff. He submits that the points raised by the learned DR has also been answered and as the ratio is fully applicable to the facts of the case, the Revenue appeal is required to be rejected.

4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides.

On a perusal of the citation referred to by the learned Advocate as in the case of Harbans Lal Malhotra & Sons v. Collector of Customs as per Final Order No. C/79/94-B, dated 30-9-1994, the Tribunal has dealt with the same machine as in the present case and has considered the material on record including CCCN Explanatory Notes and have come to the conclusion that the most appropriate heading for classification is sub-heading 84.59(2) of the erstwhile Tariff. We find that there is no reason to differ from the citation relied by the learned Advocate and applying the ratio thereof, we dismiss this appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Collector of Customs vs indo Swing Ltd. Same Subject Customs