Skip to content


Collector of Customs Vs. P.R Parekh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Reported in(1987)(27)ELT706TriDel
AppellantCollector of Customs
RespondentP.R Parekh
Excerpt:
.....yet to obtain the same. asked by the bench as to what are the documents which he has to produce, shri bhatia said that one of the documents is specialist opinion about the catheter which was available at the conference of collector of customs held sometime in june 1984 at madras, shri bhatia said that inspite of best efforts so far made by him, he could not obtain these documents from the appellant - collector of customs. s/shri s.d. nanakani and l.u. balani have come all the way from bombay for arguing this appeal for the respondents and the reasons for making a request for adjournment by shri bhatia are not considered sufficient to accede to his request. we, therefore, reject the request for adjournment and decide the appeal on merits on the basis of available material.4. the.....
Judgment:
1. This Order will also dispose of Appeal No. 1501/84-B in respect of the same party.

2. The Appellant, Collector of Customs, Bombay, through this appeal to the Tribunal Challenges the order dated 21-8-1984 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay. By the said order, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) following a decision of CEGAT in the case of same party, Order No, C-421/84 dated 29th June 1984. M/s. P.R. Parekh, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay held that imported. Folly Balloon Catheters are Suction Catheters covered by Heading 32 of Notification No. 208/Cus/81.

3. At the hearing of the appeal, Shri Rakesh Bhatia, Sr. Departmental Representative representing the appellants, prayed for adjournment urging that the appellant has to file certain additional documents and he has yet to obtain the same. Asked by the Bench as to what are the documents which he has to produce, Shri Bhatia said that one of the documents is Specialist Opinion about the Catheter which was available at the Conference of Collector of Customs held sometime in June 1984 at Madras, Shri Bhatia said that inspite of best efforts so far made by him, he could not obtain these documents from the appellant - Collector of Customs. S/Shri S.D. Nanakani and L.U. Balani have come all the way from Bombay for arguing this appeal for the respondents and the reasons for making a request for adjournment by Shri Bhatia are not considered sufficient to accede to his request. We, therefore, reject the request for adjournment and decide the appeal on merits on the basis of available material.

4. The Respondents have produced a photostat copy of Order No. C-421/84 dated 29th June 1984. There is no dispute by either party that this order by the Tribunal squarely covers the goods in question. We observe that Collector of Customs (Appeals) merely followed this order which has detailed discussion about the eligibility/classification of goods in question in paras 6 onwards of the order under the Notification We see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay and dismiss the appeals filed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay.


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