COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, AU RANG ABAD v. M/S. CEAT LTD., MUMBAI
vidhipandit.com/case/sc-2005-2-165-166
Headnote — Supreme Court Reports (editorial summary, not part of the judgment)
Classification-Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric-Levy of excise duty under Tariff Headings 59.02 or 59.06-
Held
In view of reasons recorded in the connected case viz. Commissioner of Central Excise v. MR.F. Ltd, appeals are remitted to Commissioner, Revenue for a fresh disposal in accordance D with law.
Reporter's headnote (continued) and case details
FEBRUARY 17, 2005 B
Central Excise Act, 1944; Section 35UCentral Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Tariff Headings 59.02 and 59.06, Chapter Note-4 to Chapter 59 and Note-4 C to Section XI of the Act :
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2015 of 2002.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.10.2001 of the Central Excise, Customs and Gold (Control} Appellate Tribunal, West Reginal Bench at E Mumbai in A. No. C/433/2001-Mum in F.O. No. C-1/3020 of 2001-WZB.
AND
Civil Appeal No. 1612 of 2003.
R. Mohan, Additional Solicitor General, Rajiv Dutta, Hemant Sharma, F P. Parmeswaran and B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellant.
Ravinder Narain, Sonu Bhatnagar, Ajay Aggarwal and Rajan Narain for the Respondent. G __ ,
Judgment
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KAPADIA, J. For the reasons given in our decision in Commissioner of Central Excise v. MR.F. Ltd, reported in (2005) l Scale 554, both these Civil Appeals filed by the department relating to Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric l~ H
p. 166
A are allowed; the impugned-judgments and orders of the Tribunal as well as of the Commissioner are set aside; and these appeals are remitted to the Commissioner, Mumbai, for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. All contentions on both sides-are kept open:
In the facts and circumstances.of-this case, there will be no order as to B costs.
S.K.S. Appeals allowed.
Report an error in this judgment →
Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0