Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

M/S. PRAGATI SILICONS (P) LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PANCHKULA

Decided
25 March 2009
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 1160 · 2009 INSC 407

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

These two appeals are directed. against the judgment of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New E Delhi (in short 'CESTAT'). Two issues were raised before the Tribunal; one related to the excise classification and the other related to the exemption claimed in regard to nameplate, emblems and logo of plastic manufactured by M/s Pragati Silicons (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee'), while F appellant claimed classification under Heading no.87.08 and 87.14 (parts and accessories of motor vehicles) along with exemption in terms of notification no.15/94 as amended, Revenue with reference to the products in Heading no.39.26 (articles of plastic). CESTAT referred to an earlier decision in G the assessee's case and held that Chapter 39.26 should be correct heading. This part of the decis[on is questioned by the assessee in CA No.1991/2006. So far as the claim of exemption is concerned, the Tribunal took the view relying on an earlier decision in the case of N. M. Nag pal Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE (2001) 130 ELT 359 that the exemption is available to the assessee.· H That part is challenged by the Revenue in Civil Appeal No.3248 of 2006.

pp. 1161–1162

2

Learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision in the assessee's case in Civil Appeal No.5445 of 2001 decided on 26.4.2007 (2007) 211 ELT 534 (SC) holding that the plastic name plates are "parts and accessories" of motor vehicles and since they are not excluded from Section XVII, the-· appropriate classification is under Headings 87.08 and 87.14.

p. 1162, margin A

3

Learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, relied on a decision of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. N.M. Nagpal (P) Ltd. (2008 (222) ELT 486 SC) remitting the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. CESTAT has relied upon this decision. • ·

p. 1162, margin B

4

In view of the aforesaid decisions we think it appropriate to remit the matter to the CESTATto consider the matter afresh taking into account both the decisions referred to above.

p. 1162, margin C

5

The appeals are accordingly disposed of. R.P. Appeals disposed of. . '

p. 1162, margin D