Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 1071 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of orthopaedic heating belts - Chapter Heading No.90219090 or Chapter Heading No.90189099 - extended period of limitation - Held that:- claim of the Revenue is incorrect and not supported by any of the reasoning - The reliance placed by the adjudicating authority on Chapter Note 6(i) of Chapter 90 seems to be misplaced as the said chapter note specifically talks about the preventing or correcting bodily deformities. - giving a very narrow interpretation of the phrase ‘preventing or correcting bodily deformities’ needs to be visible and should be outside the body, would be an incorrect interpretation for the classification of the product like ‘orthopaedic heating belts’ - the use of such product may be ascertained by the experts who are using or recommending such products. - The explanatory Notes to HSN specifically talks about as to what would get covered under Chapter Heading No.9018. - it is settled law that for classification of the product, the sub heading which is specific, should be preferred to general sub-heading - classification as done by the assessee under Chapter Heading No.9021 is correct - Decided in favor of assessee. Demand of Duty on the product Bandages - Manufacturing by Job worker - Held that:- The lower authorities have not conducted any further investigation and the packages of bandages as produced before us would indicate that the entire manufacturing activity took place in the job worker's premises. The submission of ld.Counsel that they are not doing any activity seems to be correct as the adjudicating authority has not recorded any finding to indicate that the appellant herein was undertaking further activity in his factory premises on the bandages which are received from the job worker in duly packed form. - the said product cleared from the factory premises as such cannot be subjected to any duty as Central Excise duty is on manufacture. - Decided in favor of assessee. Extended period of limitation - Held that:- It is seen from the show cause notice that the said show cause notice categorically records that the demand has been raised based upon the scrutiny of the declarations filed by the appellant from 2004 onwards. We are at loss to understand why the very same exercise, if any, was not undertaken by the Revenue authorities when the declarations were filed. In our view, on this factual ground, show cause notice invoking the extended period, is totally incorrect - Decided in favor of assessee.
|