G. Dass & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise , Calcutta and Others
EmailAppeal:
Petitioner: G. Dass & Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent: Collector of Central Excise , Calcutta and Others
Apeal:
Judges: J.S. VERMA , C.J.I. & B.N. KIRPAL , J.
Date of Judgment: Jul 29, 1997
Head Note:
EXCISE LAWS
Central Excise Tariff
Item No. 26-A – Round rods , square and hexagonal rods of copper and brass – Coil rods of brass etc. all classified vide approval list dated 26.2.76 vide trade notice dt. 15-12-1979 – Approval of classification list dt. 1.4.76 – Held that when list of earlier period was classified under item 26-A , there is no principle to refuse classification of later list . ( Para 2 )
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1 . The dispute in these cases is about the classification of the goods in question for the period between 1-3-1975 and 2-12-1975 and approval of the classification list dated 1-4-1976 . There is no dispute that the same goods , namely , copper and brass round rods , copper and brass square and hexagonal rods , brass rods in coil form , billets manufactured by pouring molten metal into cylindrical-shaped moulds are classified under Tariff Item 26-A by virtue of the trade notice dated 15-12-1979 . There is also no dispute that on the basis of this trade notice , the same goods were classified under Tariff Item 26-A by approval of the clas-sification list dated 26-2-1976 for a period prior to the date of the trade notice . The only question is whether for the period in question , the same classification should be made .
2 . There does not appear to be any principle to refuse clas-sification under Tariff Item 26-A for the period in question when on the basis of the trade notice dated 15-12-1979 , a classifica-tion list of a much earlier date was approved to the same effect and reclassification was made of the goods under Tariff Item 26-A .
3 . We gave time to the Department when the matter was first heard to place any material which it may have , to support the Tribunal’s judgment in its favour denying classification for the period in question as claimed by the assessee . In spite of the opportunity given for the purpose by grant of an adjournment , the Department has failed to provide either any material or any justification to sustain the view taken by the Tribunal .
4 . There is , thus , nothing pointed out on behalf of the Depart-ment to require consideration in these appeals . Consequently , the appeals are allowed , and the orders of the Tribunal are set aside .
1 . The dispute in these cases is about the classification of the goods in question for the period between 1-3-1975 and 2-12-1975 and approval of the classification list dated 1-4-1976 . There is no dispute that the same goods , namely , copper and brass round rods , copper and brass square and hexagonal rods , brass rods in coil form , billets manufactured by pouring molten metal into cylindrical-shaped moulds are classified under Tariff Item 26-A by virtue of the trade notice dated 15-12-1979 . There is also no dispute that on the basis of this trade notice , the same goods were classified under Tariff Item 26-A by approval of the clas-sification list dated 26-2-1976 for a period prior to the date of the trade notice . The only question is whether for the period in question , the same classification should be made .
2 . There does not appear to be any principle to refuse clas-sification under Tariff Item 26-A for the period in question when on the basis of the trade notice dated 15-12-1979 , a classifica-tion list of a much earlier date was approved to the same effect and reclassification was made of the goods under Tariff Item 26-A .
3 . We gave time to the Department when the matter was first heard to place any material which it may have , to support the Tribunal’s judgment in its favour denying classification for the period in question as claimed by the assessee . In spite of the opportunity given for the purpose by grant of an adjournment , the Department has failed to provide either any material or any justification to sustain the view taken by the Tribunal .
4 . There is , thus , nothing pointed out on behalf of the Depart-ment to require consideration in these appeals . Consequently , the appeals are allowed , and the orders of the Tribunal are set aside .
