Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Page Industries Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

2015 (6) TMI 535 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Classification of goods - import of Hook and Eye - Classification under Chapter 8308 1010 or under CTH 62129090 - Violation of principle of natural justice - Held that:- When the lower appellate authority chooses to change the description altogether to a new product other than what was re-assessed by the original authority but failed to give an opportunity to the appellants to put forth their defence. - Commissioner (Appeals) has not only decided the classification to a new product as Bra Extend .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by the Department and the lower appellate authority has gone beyond the grounds of appeal and described the product entirely to a new description as Bra Extenders and also directed the original authority for initiate proceedings against the appellant. - the original authority and the lower appellate authority not followed the principles of natural justice, and it is a fit case to be remitted back to Department, the impugned order is liable to be set aside for deciding the classification issue a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ts have filed miscellaneous applications for early hearing of the appeal as well as for stay of operation of the impugned order. 2. After hearing both sides we find that the Bills of Entry are live consignment and involves on classification dispute ad considering the necessitating nature early hearing application is allowed. After dispensing with the stay application, we proceed to dispose of the main appeal itself at this stage. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants imported Ho .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

62129090 as the goods were found into Tape and allowed the duty @ 10% or ₹ 30/- per piece whichever is higher. Appellants preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the Order-in-Original. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order upheld the classification under CH 62129090 and also directed the adjudicating authority to initiate proceedings for suppression as well as for the past clearances. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that they are importing the s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

given for change of classification nor any speaking order passed by the assessing officer. In their Grounds of Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), they contested the classification and also pleaded that lower authority has not given any speaking order and no hearing was given to them before changing the classification. She submits that the lower appellate authority in the impugned order took a new stand based on the websites of junglee.com, snapdeal.com, amazon.in and had come to a conclu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ore the Bench. Since principles of natural justice not followed by the original authority and the lower appellate authority she prayed for remanding the case to the original authority and also prayed for clearances of the goods on which admitted duty already paid. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR for Revenue submits that the goods were re-assessed based on the examination report. The samples were drawn by the customs and sent to the Textile Committee for test and the Textile Committee report .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in this case it is the appellant who self assessed the Bill of Entry and classified the goods under Chapter 8308 1010 but the Department disputed the classification. It is mandatory on the part of the adjudicating authority to follow the natural justice and inform the appellant as to why the classification under Chapter 83081010 is not acceptable and the reasons for classifying under Chapter 6262. We also find that the appellants clearing the said goods for the last several years in the past and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ded cross-objections justifying the classification. It is made clear that issuance of cross objection cannot take the place of the finding of an order in original. In these factual circumstances, I proceed to decide the case on merits. From the above it is clear that the appellate authority clearly held that Group has not issued a speaking order but he chose to decide the classification on merits. In the impugned order, he has described the product as Bra Extenders based on products available in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version