Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Nagpur Engg. Co. Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 12 October, 1992

Asstt.Collector,Customs & Ex.,Bhilai vs M/S Nagpur Engg. Co. Ltd. & Anr on 5 March, 2009

Session. Before this appeal could be heard finally, the Tribunal disposed of their appeal against the adjudication order vide order dated 12.10.1992, reported as Nagpur Engg. Co. Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise 1993 (63) E.L.T. 699 (Tribunal). Accordingly, even after rejecting the contention that the product viz. CIACBP was classifiable under the sub-heading 7302.90, the Tribunal proceeded to set aside the penalty holding that the act of the respondents in not applying for Central Excise Licence was based on a bona fide belief. For a ready reference, the relevant extracts of the order may be reproduced as under -
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bakshi Steels Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 9 March, 1994

4. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced on the question of classification by both sides. We are inclined to agree with the ld. JDR for the Revenue that insert is a fastening material for rails and sleepers and therefore, its classification would be appropriately under Tariff Heading 7302.90. Although the goods under consideration in Nagpur Engineering (supra) were different i.e. 'anti-creep bearing plate' but paras 4 & 5 would have a bearing on deciding the question of classification in this matter as well. The view sought to be taken by the ld. Advocate is only from a very narrow angle to the word 'fixing' described in Tariff Heading 73.02. He wants to restrict this entry to the items which can be brought on site for laying the track. We do not feel that the wide words of the headings, in the context of discussions in paras 4 & 5 in Nagpur Engineering, could be interpreted in the narrow sense advanced by the ld. Advocate. Closely examining his contention, we notice that 'insert' is also brought to the site as a part pre-embedded in a concrete sleeper, though not separately as insert. Accordingly, on the question of classification, we uphold the contention of the Revenue.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1