M/S FARWOOD INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI
- Citation
- 2007 INSC 54
- Decided
- 17 January 2007
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The orders of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner must be reconsidered, and the matter is remitted to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai‑III for fresh disposal.
Summary
In Mis. Farwood Industries (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, the appellant challenged the classification and duty liability of certain goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Assessing Officer and the Commissioner had affirmed the original assessment, but the appellant relied on the precedent set in Mis. Craft Interiors Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, which dealt with the exigibility of duty on similar items. The Supreme Court examined whether the earlier judgment required a fresh consideration of the classification issue. Finding that the Craft Interiors decision was applicable, the Court held that the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner must be reconsidered. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai‑III for a fresh disposal in accordance with law, and the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the classification of the goods in question under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and the consequent exigibility of duty, should be revisited in light of the judgment in Mis. Craft Interiors Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore.
- Whether the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Central Excise are sustainable on the facts of the present case.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Judgment
-, MIS. FARWOOD INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.
v.
A
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI
JANUARY 17, 2007
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] B
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
Excise,Bangalore & Anr., (2006] 11 SCALE 78, relied on.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3715 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 :
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
1093
1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] I S.C.R
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:
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.