M/S. QUINN INDIA LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD

C.A. No.-003354-003354 - 2001Supreme Court11 May 20064 pages
For Respondent: P. PARMESWARAN
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the chemical examiner's and chief chemist's reports, which indicated the product possessed surface-active properties and was classifiable under tariff item 3402.90. The burden of proof was on the Revenue to show otherwise, which it failed to do.

What were the facts?

The assessee classified its product 'Penetrator 4893' under different tariff items over time. The Revenue issued a show cause notice for differential excise duty, which was initially dropped by the Adjudicating Authority and Collector (Appeals) based on chemical reports. However, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, setting aside the lower authorities' orders.

What were the issues?

Whether the product 'Penetrator 4893' is correctly classified under tariff item 3402.90 based on its surface-active properties, and whether the Revenue discharged its burden of proof to establish a different classification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3354 of 2001 PETITIONER: M/s Quinn India Ltd. RESPONDENT: Commissioner of Central Excise,Hyderabad DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/05/2006 BENCH: Ashok Bhan & Lokeshwar Singh Panta

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. M/s. Quinn India Limited \026 the appellant-assessee has filed the present Statutory appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act") against the Final Order No. 1860/2000 dated 22.12.2000 recorded by the Customs, Excise, Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zone Bench, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Civil Appeal Nos. E/1299/94-C and E/CO/366/94-C. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Revenue") and set aside the order - Appeal No. 2/94(H)(D) CE dated 28.2.1994 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).

The assessee was engaged in the manufacture of Penetrator -4893 falling under tariff item No. 68 of the old tariff since 1980 to 1986. The assessee was paying the excise duty on the p

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 11A

All 97 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →