Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 3]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S.S.F. Patel & Sons (I) Ltd on 15 December, 2009

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI



Appeal No.E/974/2003


[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.58/2003 (M-III) dated 11.08.2003   passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]


For approval and signature:

Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
Honble DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member


1.	Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT	 (Procedure) Rules, 1982?					      :
2.	Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the 
	CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?				      	      :
3.	Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of
	the Order?								      :
4.	Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
	Authorities?							      :

	
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Appellant

         
       Versus
     

M/s.S.F. Patel & Sons (I) Ltd.
Respondents

Appearance :

Shri C. Dhanasekaran, SDR Shri M.N. Bharathi, Adv. For the Appellant For the Respondents CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Mr.Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of hearing : 15.12.2009 Date of decision : 15.12.2009 Final Order No.____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue for determination in the present appeal is classification of perfume sprays containing alcohol manufactured by the respondents herein, who are a unit situate in MEPZ, Tambaram  according to the Revenue, perfumes falls for classification under Heading 96.16, while according to the assessees whose claim has been accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals), perfumes do not fall within the ambit of Medicinal and Toilet Preparations Act, 1955.

2. We have heard both sides. We see no merit in the contention of the Revenue for the reason that Heading 96.16 covers scent sprays and similar toilet sprays and mounts and heads therefor   . According to the HSN, this heading covers scent brilliantine and similar toilet sprays, whether of the table or pocket type, and whether for professional or personal use. They consist of a reservoir generally in the form of bottle to which is fixed the mount, which incorporates the head and a pneumatic pressure bulb or a piston device. The heading above certainly does not cover perfumes, therefore, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal of the Revenue.

		(Dictated and pronounced in open court)





(DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY)             (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
        TECHNICAL MEMBER		                       VICE-PRESIDENT  






     ksr
       16-12-2009



??

??

??

??

1


2