Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (9) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2017 (9) TMI 222 - AT - Central Excise


Issues:
Classification of products under Chapter Sub Heading 39.17, time-barred demand, intention to evade payment of duty, liability of individual partners in the appeal.

Classification Issue:
The case involved a dispute regarding the correct classification of products under Chapter Sub Heading 39.17. The department alleged that the products should have been classified under 39.20 and 39.23 instead, attracting a higher rate of duty. The appellant argued that the goods manufactured by the respondent were not fit for the purposes mentioned in the Chapter Notes for 39.17, as they were polypropylene films primarily used for packaging, not for conveying liquids or gases. The respondent, however, contended that the goods fell under 39.17 based on previous Tribunal decisions and had rectified any inadvertent errors in duty payment promptly upon discovery.

Time-Barred Demand Issue:
The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the demand on the grounds of limitation, stating that there was no suppression of facts by the respondents. The appellant, however, argued that the respondents had changed the classification themselves to pay a lower duty rate, indicating an intention to evade payment. The department invoked the extended period for raising the demand, which the appellant claimed was justified due to the alleged intentional misclassification by the respondents.

Liability of Individual Partners Issue:
The appellant raised concerns about the liability of the individual partners of the respondent firm, alleging that they should also be held accountable for any evasion of duty. However, the respondent pointed out that no separate appeal had been filed against the individual partners, and they had rectified any duty discrepancies promptly upon identification. The Tribunal noted that since no appeal was filed against the partners, their liability could not be challenged in the current appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, emphasizing that the respondents had rectified any duty discrepancies promptly upon discovery. The issue of classification was deemed interpretational and under litigation in various forums, absolving the respondents of any intentional evasion of duty. The liability of the individual partners was not addressed in the appeal due to the absence of separate appeals against them.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates