Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.19 seconds)
Collector Of Central Excise vs Anup Engg. Ltd. on 26 September, 1996 cites

Tata Iron And Steel Co. Ltd. Etc vs Union Of India And Anr on 23 July, 1996

In the case of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India -1988 (35) E.L.T. 605 (SC), the Supreme Court had dealt with forged products, "wheels and axles" which were produced by M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (TISCO) for Indian Railways. At the stage of forging, wheels and axles had taken a definite shape of 'wheels and axles' but still not 'usable' as such by the Railways. They were required to be subjected to further processing in the Railways workshop before they could be put to actual use. The Supreme Court had held that at the stage wheels and axles were cleared by M/s. TISCO duty was payable under Item No. 26AA of the old Tariff, but they were not liable to pay duty on those goods under Item No. 68 as some further processes were required to be made on such wheels, tyres, axles and blanks etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 118 - Full Document

Jalal Plastic Industries And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 23 December, 1980

The broad Heading or T.I. 25(13) has further divided into four groups for fixing tariff rate, and only those items which are mentioned in the sub-groups would be subject to duty of excise. The Item No. 25(13)(iv) is general in nature and it covers all iron and steel products which are not referred to in T.I. 25(13)(i) to T.I. 25(13)(iii). The appellants have further clarified that the reliance placed by the Asstt. Collector on explanations No. XVI to XVIII below T.I. 25, is irrelevant and unwarranted for the purpose of classification, inasmuch as these explanations provide specifications for universal plates, plate and sheet, and it does not refer to any specification for a 'form' made out of these items; and that T.I. 25(13) covers 'forms' made from plates or sheets such as ridges, channels (other than slotted channels), rain-water pipes, and their fittings; and that the Asstt. Collector has mis-interpreted the meaning of the expression 'such as' and restricted himself only to those 'forms' under T.I. 25(13)(iv) which are specifically mentioned after the expression 'such as'. They have therefore contended that this approach or method of interpretation is not correct and legal. I agree with the appellants above contention since the expression 'such as' used in the tariff entry indicates that the items specified after the word 'such as' do not exhaust the category of 'forms' but are only illustrative and the illustration given therein namely ridges, channels, rainwater pipes and their fittings, would not restrict the scope of 'forms' made from sheet or plates to that extent, nor would they narrow down the scope of inclusion of such 'form' in the said entry. The High Court of Gujarat, in the case of Jalal Plastic Industries v Union of India and Ors., reported in 1981 ECR 245-D, has held that "It appears to us that the expression 'such as' used in Clause (ii) merely illustrates Polymerisation and Co-polymerisation products. The enumeration, in our opinion of the product which follows the expression 'such as' is, therefore, not exhaustive". In the circumstances, the views expressed by me gets support of the above High Courts decision, and the product 'Dished Ends' and other products mentioned in classification lists in question would appropriately classifiable under T.I. 25(13)(iv) and not under T.I. 68 as held by the Asstt. Collector. In the circumstances, both the appeals i.e. Appeal No. 1176/85 and 1698/85 succeed on merits. As regards the third appeal No. 1699/85, it is in respect of refund of Rs. 48,279.38 which has been rejected by the Asstt. Collector on the main ground that their Classification List No. 1 /84, dated 7-8-1984 claiming classification of the products under T.I. 25(13)(iv) as well as the exemption claimed under Notification No. 203/83, dated 1-8-1983 as amended, has been rejected vide Order No. MP/102/1985, dated 30-9-1985. However, I have held that the products 'Dished Ends' and other products mentioned in classification list are classifiable under T.I. 25(13)(iv) and not under T.I. 68, this appeal also succeeds on merits."
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 13 - G T Nanavati - Full Document
1