Classifier - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: classifier Year: 1987 Page 1 of about 482 results (0.014 seconds)Collector of Central Excise Vs. Himachal Pradesh Horticulture
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC112
..... cases show cause notices were issued to the appellants alleging that the appellants cleared goods classifiable under item no ib of central excise tariff packed in plastic barrels but the value ..... the carboys since the carboys were returnable their contention that therefore the product was not classifiable under tariff item 1b had been rejected by the assistant collector in his order dated .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTBrakes India Limited and ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC157
..... hose assemblies were distinct and different from hoses and were correctly classifiable under item no 68 cet however he held that the ..... for the assistant collector conveying the decision that hose assembly was classifiable under item no 16a cet and that since the hoses ..... trade name character and use etc they were textile machinery parts classifiable under item no 68 cet a the re classification of .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCollector of Central Excise Vs. Apex Rubber (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC379
..... sizes have been described as bus seats and scooter seats and classified under ti 16a 1 subsequently the respondents filed a classification 6 ..... collector under the impugned order held that the articles should be classified under t l 68 he was of the view that the ..... as a glass mirror under those circumstances it was difficult to classify them as glass ware for glass ware meant merchandise made of .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCollector of Customs Vs. Joseph Leslie Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC105
..... machines appliances instruments or apparatus falling within any heading of chapter 90 are to be classified as a parts or accessories constituting in themselves machines appliances instruments or apparatus including ..... their classification as air filters will really not be appropriate they have to be classified as parts of breathing appliances and considering this fact i would agree with shri .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCollector of Central Excise Vs. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)ECC102
..... their intracommunication system the collector of central excise bangalore held that these systems would be classifiable as intercom devices and fall under tariff item 33 d of the central excise tariff ..... premises of the respondents because of the essential character of the equipment it should be classifiable as intercom device under item 33 d of the central excise tariff ignoring the actual .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSai Giridhara Supply Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC140Tri(Delhi)
..... the appellants classification list 5 79 80 dated 1 4 1979 classifying carbon paper and carbonised adding machine rolls under item 68 of ..... coated paper would before amendment of tariff in 1982 also be classifiable under item 17 2 of cet shri sundar rajan submitted that ..... far as the carbonised adding rolls are concerned these will be classifiable under t 1 17 2 classification of carbon paper having been .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTPasteur Laboratories (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-11-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC817Tri(Delhi)
..... having subsidiary curative or prophylactic value 3 in his order in original the assistant collector classified the products calaminol calamyl aquaminol and calacream as cosmetics and toilet preparations made for ..... cause notice to justify the re classification of the impugned products which were previously classified under tariff item 14 e as patent or proprietary medicines under the revised tariff .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCollector of Central Excise and Vs. Allied Computers and ors.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC87
..... b1 differed on the following point whether the subject machine is classifiable under ti 33dd sic or ti 68 of the first schedule ..... scientific officer had recommended that the goods in question should be classified under ti 68 and not under ti 33dd he however submitted ..... view expressed by the learned judicial member namely that it was classifiable under ti 68 was the correct view and should be upheld .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCollector of Central Excise Vs. Nat Steel Equipment Private
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC290
..... and heavy duty industrial canteen equipment the following 14 items were classified by them under t i 68 in their classification list no ..... in respect of the respondents company where a hospital equipment was classified under t i 68 and the change to item 40 in ..... features in support of their contention that the products are not classifiable under t i 33c 1 the above mentioned items are specially .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCollector of Customs Vs. Ceat Tyres (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1987
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT333TriDel
..... and oil contained therein have a functional role and therefore the goods would not be classifiable as insoluble sulphur during arguments he also referred to supreme court decision in khandelwal ..... mu sulphur would not merit classification under chapter 28 even otherwise plainly it is not classifiable under this chapter the surviving competitive chapters are thus chapter 25 claimed by the respondents .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT- << Prev.
- Next >>
Sign-up to get more results
Unlock complete result pages and premium legal research features.
Start Free Trial