COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, MUMBAI versus M/S. BELL GRANITO CERAMICA LTD.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, MUMBAI versus M/S. BELL GRANITO CERAMICA LTD.

Tiles subjected only to mechanical polishing without any application of glazed material (melted glass) are not 'glazed tiles' under the Tariff Act; since there was no suppression of facts by the assessee, the extended limitation under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act does not apply.

Parties
Appellant: COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, MUMBAI A; Respondent: M/S. BELL GRANITO CERAMICA LTD.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Tariff Classification, Excise Duty, Limitation Under Central Excise Act, Process Distinction: Glazing Vs Polishing
Central Excise Law Tariff Classification Excise Duty Limitation Under Central Excise Act Process Distinction: Glazing Vs Polishing

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, MUMBAI A

Appellant

M/S. BELL GRANITO CERAMICA LTD.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether polished and glossy ceramic tiles are 'glazed tiles' for the purposes of tariff classification and higher excise duty
  2. 2 Whether the demand notice for recovery of differential excise duty is barred by limitation under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act

Ratio Decidendi

Tiles subjected only to mechanical polishing without any application of glazed material (melted glass) are not 'glazed tiles' under the Tariff Act; since there was no suppression of facts by the assessee, the extended limitation under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act does not apply.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Assessee not liable to pay differential excise duty under the disputed headings
  • No suppression, extended limitation under Section 11-A not applicable