Skip to content


Koundinya Industrial Agencies Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Reported in(1983)LC1001DTri(Delhi)
AppellantKoundinya Industrial Agencies
RespondentCollector of Customs
Excerpt:
.....not strips.3. we have carefully considered the matter. we find that the point at issue in this case stands settled with the judgment, of the hon'ble, high court of madras, reported as 1977-2 mlj 202, in which the said high court have held similar goods imported by another party as strips.no contrary judgment has been brought to our notice. the appellants fall within the jurisdiction of madras high court and the judgment of that high court is, therefore, applicable to them. we also find that the identical issue has been dealt with at very great length in orders-in-revision of the government of india passed in a batch of 13 revision applications and reported as 1982, elt-768. we are in agreement with the reasoning given and the conclusion drawn in these orders of the government.4......
Judgment:
1. A common point is involved in these two appeals of the same appellants and they were, therefore, heard together on 4-4-1983.

2. The point involved in these two appeals is whether stainless steel sheets in coils, having width of 500 mm. and thickness af 0.5 mm., are to be classified as sheets or as strips for the purpose of assessment of customs duty under the Indian Customs Tariff. The appellants relied on ISI definitions, Madras Custom House Public Notice No. 14/66, Government of India's Order-in-Revision No. 2065 of 1972, Exemption Notification No. 118/65-Customs and also the subsequent definitions incorporated in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which replaced the Indian Customs Tariff later, in support of their claim that the subject goods was strips. The Department's representative stated that the goods were described in the Bill of Entry as sheets which showed that as per the international trade practice they were known as sheets and not as strips. He also relied on CBR's Ruling No. 1 of 1934 in support of his contention that the subject goods were only sheets and not strips.

3. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that the point at issue in this case stands settled with the judgment, of the Hon'ble, High Court of Madras, reported as 1977-2 MLJ 202, in which the said High Court have held similar goods imported by another party as strips.

No contrary judgment has been brought to our notice. The appellants fall within the jurisdiction of Madras High Court and the judgment of that High Court is, therefore, applicable to them. We also find that the identical issue has been dealt with at very great length in orders-in-revision of the Government of India passed in a batch of 13 revision applications and reported as 1982, ELT-768. We are in agreement with the reasoning given and the conclusion drawn in these orders of the Government.

4. Accordingly, we allow both these appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //