Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Versus Ramkumar & Sons Pvt. Ltd.

2016 (1) TMI 199 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Classification of goods - whether the product manufactured by respondent is “rough forging, and merits classification under 73.26 as claimed by the respondent or 72 07.10 as confirmed by the first appellate authority - Held that:- The classification which has been arrived at by the first appellate authority in his impugned order is under Chapter Heading No. 7207. In our view the impugned order cannot travel beyond the show-cause notice and classifying the product under Chapter Heading No. 7207 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

er remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue. - Appeal No. E/200/07 - Dated:- 13-10-2015 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri V.K. Shastri, Asst. Commr (AR) For the Respondent : Shri Gautam Datta, Advocate ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran This appeal is filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal SVS/346/NGP-II/2006 dated 31.10.2006. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are respondent herein is manufacturer of Iron and 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

ng them to show cause as to why the product should not be classified under 7326 instead of 7214 as has been claimed by them. The show-cause notice was contested before the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority after considering the submissions made, did not agree with the contentions raised and confirmed the demands raised with interest and also imposed penalties. On an appeal before the first appellate authority the said order-in-original was reversed and the appeal was allowed. 3. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e authority is highly presumptuous and classifying the product under 7207.10/7207.90 is incorrect. He would submit that the product manufactured by the respondent would merit classification under Chapter Heading 73.26 as other articles of Iron and Steel . He would submit that the respondent had not given any evidences as to the articles manufactured by them are finished Rough Forging removed from their factory premises. In the absence of any evidence, classification under 7207 is incorrect. He w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ll under Chapter Heading 73. He would submit that the Boards Circular No. 139/79/87-CX-4 dated 18.9.1989 need to be seen and it indicates that after 01.03.1988 forging of Iron and Steel would fall under Chapter Headings 73, 84, 85, 86. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent would draw our attention to the findings recorded by the first appellate authority and the adjudicating authority. He would submit that the first appellate authority has correctly reproduced the manufacturing 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

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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