Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.40 seconds)
Optel Telecommunication Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 13 April, 2005 cites

Dunlop India Ltd. & Madras Rubber ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 6 October, 1975

4.2 Learned Advocate emphasised that process of sheathing is carried out only on loose tubes which have been stranded together with each of the loose tubes containing two fibres with the fibre as such not being subjected to sheathing at any stage; that thin UV cured acrylate coating does not constitute sheathing; that this is apparent from the Explanatory Notes of HSN below Heading 90.01 wherein it is mentioned that "optical fibre cables consists of concentric layers of glass or plastic of different refractive indices. invisible to the naked eye, which renders the fibres less prone to fracture." He mentioned that in their case also, the fabrics are drawn from glass having a very thin coating of UV Acrylate and this is squarely covered by the Explanatory Notes of Heading 90.01. He also contended that even if tube is considered as sheathing, it contains two fibres and not individual fibre. He also mentioned that two samples of the optical fibre cables manufactured by them were sent for examination to the Department of Elect. Engineering, SV Government Polytechnic, Bhopal who certified that the cables manufactured by them are multi fibre sheathed cable; that they had also sought expert opinion from T C Raghvan, General Manager, Telecommunication Project, Bombay who has opined that the optical fibre cables manufactured by them and supplied to Department of Telecommunication are not made up of individually sheathed fibre and that the fibres are only given a protective coating of resin which is integral part of fibre. He also pointed out that optical fibre cables (identical in structure and design to the cables manufactured by them) were also imported from their collaborator in Japan in February, 193 and the customs Department had classified the same for the purpose of levying the countervailing duty under Heading 90.01 of the Central Excise Tariff. Learned Advocate also mentioned that as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Dunlop India Ld. and Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. v. Union of India (1983 ELT 1566 (SC) when there is no reference to the use or adaptation of the article, the basis of end use for classification under the tariff entry is absolutely irrelevant. Learned Advocate also contended that as the show cause notice is vague without giving the reasons for treating the cables as individually sheathed, it deserves to be set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 172 - P K Goswami - Full Document

Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 24 November, 1984

He relied upon the decision in the case of Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1985 (19) ELT 329 MP) wherein it has been held that a show cause notice is not an empty formality and the law requires that the show cause notice should give an opportunity of leading evidence in support of ones allegation and controverting the charge or allegation as are made against the persons called upon to show cause; that a mere opportunity of submitting an explanation is not enough.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1