COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE BOMBAY Vs. MAHARASHTRA FUR FABRICS LIMITED
LAWS(SC)-2002-9-94
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
September 24,2002
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE,BOMBAY
Appellant
VERSUS
MAHARASHTRA FUR FABRICS LIMITED
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
RENU BALI VS. DELHI DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(DLH)-2005-7-5] [RERFERRED TO . 5.]J K PAPER LTD VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2010-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
RALLIS INDIA LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-2-130] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH VS. M/S. SHITAL INTERNATIONAL [LAWS(SC)-2010-10-136] [REFERRED TO]
VIDARBHA AYURVED MAHAVIDYALAYA VS. TULESHWAR MANGALMURTI DHASKAT [LAWS(BOM)-2013-6-35] [REFERRED TO]
CHAUBEY OVERSEAS CORPORATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(ALL)-2007-10-179] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CHANDIGARH VS. SHITAL INTERNATIONAL [LAWS(SC)-2010-10-101] [REFERRED TO]
VISA STEEL LTD VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2010-8-48] [REFERRED TO]
BALA HANDLOOMS EXPORTS COMPANY LTD. VS. CCE [LAWS(CE)-2007-11-36] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MEERUT VS. VERSATILE ENTERPRISES LTD. [LAWS(ALL)-2011-2-330] [REFERRED TO]
THIRD MEMBER ON REFERENCE : SHRI S.S. KANG, VICE-PRESIDENT VS. K.G. DENIM LTD. [LAWS(CE)-2005-7-76] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR PROCESSORS VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD-I [LAWS(CE)-2010-4-11] [REFERRED TO]
VIDARBHA AYURVED MAHAVIDYALAYA AND ORS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS [LAWS(BOM)-2013-6-210] [REFERRED]
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 79, 80 AND 100 TO 103 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 VS. RALLIS INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2005-2-201] [REFERRED]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal is filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay against the order, No. E/254/94-D, of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. E/4217/90-D dated 29th April, 1994. By the impugned order, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals), Bombay, affirming the order of the Assistant Collector holding that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 109/1986-C.E. dated 27th February, 1986, as amended by Notification No. 3/1988-C.E. dated 19th January, 1988 (for short, 'the Notification').
(2.)The question that arises for consideration is : Whether the respondent is covered by the proviso inserted in the notification
(3.)The respondent-assessee manufactures high fur fabrics by sliver knitting process. In Classification List No. 1/1987 dated 10th March, 1987 filed by the respondent, the product was classified under Heading 60.01 and benefit of the said notification was claimed attracting 'nil' rate of duty. There is no dispute that the respondent was entitled to the exemption granted under the said notification till 19th January, 1988 when the proviso was inserted therein.
(2.)The question that arises for consideration is : Whether the respondent is covered by the proviso inserted in the notification
(3.)The respondent-assessee manufactures high fur fabrics by sliver knitting process. In Classification List No. 1/1987 dated 10th March, 1987 filed by the respondent, the product was classified under Heading 60.01 and benefit of the said notification was claimed attracting 'nil' rate of duty. There is no dispute that the respondent was entitled to the exemption granted under the said notification till 19th January, 1988 when the proviso was inserted therein.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.