Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Commissioner Of Customs, Bangalore vs M/S. Elgithread (India) Ltd. on 2 September, 2015
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Rohinton Fali Nariman
ITEM NO.107 COURT NO.13 SECTION III
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 4201/2006
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/S. ELGITHREAD (INDIA) LTD. Respondent(s)
Date : 02/09/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
For Appellant(s) Mr. A.K. Panda, Adv.
Mr. H.K. Naik, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Sharma, Adv.
Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. M.P. Devanath, Adv.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv.
Mr. S. Vasudevan, Adv.
Mr. Hemant Bajaj, Adv.
Mr. Anandh K., Adv.
Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv.
Mr. R. Ramchandran, Adv.
Ms. L. Charanya, Adv.
Mr. M. P. Devanath,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the Signed Order.
(Rajni Mukhi) (Renu Diwan)
Sr. P.A. Court Master
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Rajni Mukhi
(Signed Order is placed on the file) Date: 2015.09.28 16:49:08 IST Reason: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4201 of 2006 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE APPELLANT VERSUS M/S. ELGITHREAD (INDIA) LTD. RESPONDENT O R D E R We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. To state in brief, certain goods were imported by respondent (hereinafter referred to as the “assessee”), namely, Tyre Scanner K2 type separation and Tread Porosity System and Software for Scanner K2. The dispute of classification of these goods arose. As per the department the goods were to be classified under Chapter Heading 90.31 whereas the assessee contended that the appropriate classification would be under Chapter Heading 90.27. The Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee.
We have gone through the impugned order passed and do not find any error therein. Otherwise also, the tax effect is only Rs.7,18,919/-. However, insofar as refund of the aforesaid amount is concerned, the matter is remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority to consider as to whether the tax effect was passed on by the assessee to the consumer or not
- 2 -
and based thereupon, the issue of refund be decided keeping in view the principle laid down in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III Versus Grasim Industries [2015-TIOL-64-SC-CX]. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
...............J. [A.K.SIKRI] ......................J. [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN] NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 02, 2015