Supreme Court of India
M/S FARWOOD INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI on 17 January 2007
- ,
A
MIS. F ARWOOD INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI
JANUARY 17, 2007
B
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.]
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985:
Hr.lures and Furniture-Difference between-Exigibility o/-Held, in view of the judgment in Mis. Craft Industries case*, the order passed by c the Assessing OfJicer and as affirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, requires re-consideration-Matter remitted to the Commissioner of Central Excise for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
*Mis. Craft Interiors Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central D Excise,Bangalore & Anr., (2006] 11 SCALE 78, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3 715 of2005.
__ From the Final Judgment and Order No. 345/2005 dated 3.3.2005 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at E Chennai in Appeal No. E/319111998.
A.K. Ganguly, Sr. Adv., Nikhil Nayyar and Amit Singhal for the Appellant.
F
Subba Rao and B. Krishna Prasad for the Respondent.
The Order of the Court delivered :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
G
Heard Mr.A.K.Ganguly, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.
We have perused the order passed by the Assessing Officer and also the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai. H
A The learned senior counsel for th~ appellant at the· time of hearing relied upon the Judgment in Mis.Craft Interiors Pvt.Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore & Anr. reported in (2006] 11 SCALE 78 and in particular paragraph 17 of the said Judgment. In view of the above Judgment, the order passed by the Assessing Officer and as affirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai requires re-consideration. We, B therefore, remit the matter to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.
Both parties are at liberty to place additional' documents before the C Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III.
R.P.
Appear allowed: