Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
Akbar Badrudin Jiwani vs Collector Of Customs, Bombay on 14 February, 1990
10. By drawing reference to the allegations in the Orders-
in-Original, Shri Raghavan Ramabadran would draw our
attention to the reply filed by the Appellant wherein they
have meticulously replied/explained their stance and hence,
the allegations in the Orders-in-Original are bereft of any
evidence. With regard to the invoices relied upon by the
Commissioner, our attention was drawn to the reply that
majority of the invoices contain clearly AAC blocks (SLB)
which is not at all considered by the Original Authority
which, according to him contain the correct classification.
He would further contend that in any case when tariff entry
is used in a scientific or a technical sense, the words used to
understand a product in common parlance or commercial
parlance cannot be used to interpret the tariff entry and, in
this regard, he places reliance on a decision of Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in Akbar Badruddin Jiwani Vs Collector
10
of Customs - 1990 (47) ELT 161 (SC).
M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Manesar ... vs C.C.E & S.T. Delhi-Iii on 30 September, 2015
He would also rely
on an order of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Sand Plast
(India) Ltd. Vs CCE Delhi - 2019 (24) G.S.T.L. 737 (Tri.-
Del.) wherein, according to him, an almost similar issue is
considered and the decision has been given in favour of the
taxpayer.
1