New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (6) TMI 535 - CESTAT CHENNAI

2015 (6) TMI 535 - CESTAT CHENNAI - 2015 (329) E.L.T. 570 (Tri. - 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 (Ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppeals before lower appellate authority disputing the classification followed 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 imp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r the Respondent Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) ORDER Per R. Periasami Appellants 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 t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing group re-assessed these Bills of Entry and classified the goods under CTH 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ds were re-classified under 62129090 as parts of braziers and no reasons were 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ever been used as bra extender. She also produced samples of hook and eye before 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 custom .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d back to the assessing group for re-assessment. It goes without saying that 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ut in this case speaking order is not issued by the group. The LAA has forwarded 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, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version