Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. Carrier Aircon Ltd.

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) vs. M/S WELKIN FOODS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

…5531 of 2025 Page 71 of 109 (Emphasis Supplied) 80. This Court, in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi vs Carrier Aircon Ltd, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 596, examined the legal position surrounding the classification of chillers. It was the assessee’s contention that the chillers should be classified under Chapter Heading 84.18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which covers “Refrigerators, freezers and other refrigerating or freezing equipment, electric or other; heat pumps other than air c…

M/S.THERMAX LTD. THR. ITS DIRECTOR vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,PUNE 1

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

…s manufactured by the appellants. The CESTAT by applying the ratio laid down in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi Vs. Carrier Aircon Ltd.5 has therefore concluded that the function 5 (2006) 5 SCC 596 Page 26 of 28 of the machine is only to chill water or bring it to a very low temperature. 19. The above conclusion is supported by the ratio in Xerox India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs6, where Justice H.L. Dattu while adverting to functional classification of multi-functional machines opined that in case of machines capable of per…

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ETC. vs. M/S.AISHWARYA INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ETC

Bench: Us.

…say, the latter will always prevail over the former [see CCE v. Jayant Oil Mills (P) Ltd. (1989) 3 SCC 343, HPL Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE (2006) 5 SCC 208, Western India Plywoods Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (2005) 12 SCC 731 and CCE v. Carrier Aircon Ltd. (2006) 5 SCC 596]. 40. In Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. Carrier Aircon Ltd. (2006) 5 SCC 596, this Court held as under:- "14. End use to which the product is put to by itself cannot be determinative of the classification of the product. See Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 3 SCC 284. There are a number of factors which have to be t…

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S. WOCKHARDT LIFE SCIENCE LTD

…ntry; that is to say, the latter will always prevail over the former [see CCE v. Jayant Oil Mills, (1989) 3 SCC 343; HPL Chemicals v. CCE, (2006) 5 SCC 208; Western India Plywoods v. Collector of Customs, (2005) 12 SCC 731; CCE v. Carrier Aircon, (2006) 5 SCC 596]. In CCE v. Carrier Aircon, (2006) 5 SCC 596, this Court held: “14… There are a number of factors which have to be taken into consideration for determining the classification of a product. For the purposes of classification, the relevant factors inter alia are statutory fiscal entry, the basic character, function and us…

L.M.L. LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3764 OF 2003 L.M.L. Ltd. …. Appellant Versus Commissioner of Customs …. Respondent JUDGMENT Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. An application being I.A. No. 3 was filed in this appeal and the same was allowed by this Court vide Order dated 26/02/2004. The dispute in the present appeal is between the customs authority and the assessee regarding liability to pay duty by the appellant. The Airport Authority of India has absolutely no role to play in the said dispute. The I.A. No. 3 was filed only because the consignment i…