Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2022 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 471 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTIntermediate products - staple fibers - expansion of meaning of the term staple fiber at Sl.No.10 of Notification No.30/2004 dated 09.07.2004 to include tow in total disregard to meaning of staple fibers as is understood in the trade parlance - benefit of captive consumption in notification no.67/95 dated 16.03.1995 - rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - Staple Fiber at Sl.No.10 of the Notification No.30/2004 dated 09.07.2004 is applicable in respect of the polyester top falling under the head 5506/5507 or not - interpretation of notification no.30/2004 CE dated 09.07.2004 which clearly provides at Sl.No.10 exemption is available if goods falling under the tariff hearing 5506/5507 are manufactured from staple fibers procured from outside subjected to carding, combing or any other process required for spinning by the manufacturer who does not have the facility in his factory including (plant and equipment while producing goods under heading Nos.56501 5502 5504 5505. HELD THAT:- There is considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, that the appellant having not raised a claim before the Liquidator, no approval of the adjudicating authority having been obtained, filing of an appeal under Section 130 of the Act is wholly untenable, more particularly, when the distribution of the assets is already made. As per Section 238 of the Code, the provisions of the Code overrides other laws that are inconsistent with the Code. Moreover, the questions raised relates to classification of goods and interpretation of exemption notification. In COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE-1 VERSUS M/S MOTOROLA INDIA LTD. [2019 (9) TMI 229 - SUPREME COURT] the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that determination of a question relating to the classification of goods under the Tariff and whether or not they are covered by an exemption notification would not be amenable to the jurisdiction under Section 130 of the Act. The appeal stands dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to seek redressal of the grievances before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law.
|