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

CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS UNDER CENTRAL EXCISE ACT 1944

Central Excise - By: - Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN - Dated:- 2-2-2016 Last Replied Date:- 5-2-2016 - The classification of goods consists of determining the headings or sub headings of the Central Excise Tariff under which the goods would be covered. The actual amount of excise duty payable on excisable goods is dependent upon the rate of duty. The rate of duty is determinable on the basis of classification of goods. The classification of goods is also required to be decided for the purposes of determin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the entry, the classification is to be done as per the entry in the tariff itself. HSN explanatory notes can be resorted to in the case of ambiguity in classifying goods. Some of the issues involved in classification of goods are discussed as below with reference to decided case laws: Classification based on expert opinion In Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs V. Innovative Foods Limited - 2015 (12) TMI 665 - SUPREME COURT the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of processed, pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the said products should be classified under Chapter 3 and not under Chapter 16. The said order was challenged by the Revenue before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that the conclusion of the Tribunal is primarily rested on the opinion of expert bodies which include the Director of Marine Products Export Development Authority as well as the Director of Central Institute of Fisheries Technology. The Department did not even cross examine the experts who had given the opinion in questio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cts were classifiable under Heading 4819.19 and liable to excise duty. The Revenue confirmed the duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of Adjudicating Authority. Before the Tribunal the Revenue contended that Heading 48.21 covers only items like labels of a kind used as attachment to any type of package for the purpose of indicating its nature, identity, manufacturer, price etc., The papers designed and printed for packing goods and gift articles cannot be claimed under Heading 48 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ying it as labels. Invoking extended period In Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - I V. JCB India Limited - 2014 (2) TMI 632 - CESTAT MUMBAI the Tribunal held that in case of classification dispute, the extended period is not invocable and the penalty is not imposable under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. In Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - IV V. Brahans Rubber P. Limited - 2015 (9) TMI 1322 - CESTAT MUMBAI the alleged first item is processed rubber compound in sheet form. 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

h inputs, goes out of 4005.10 and classification under 4005.9. The Tribunal held that the respondent clearly misdeclared the fact that they were not availing CENVAT credit of any inputs, hence extended period of limitation is invocable and penalty is also imposable. For the second item, processed rubber compound in cord form, the compounded rubber in primary form is used as an input and such sheet further extended through a die of dimension of 10 x 10 sq.mm to get compounded rubber of said dimen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

od is not invocable. Estoppel In Elson Machines Private Limited V. Commissioner of Central Excise - 1988 (11) TMI 107 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, the Supreme Court held that the Central Excise authorities are not stopped from taking a view different than in the classification list as there is stopped against the law. Res-judicata In Hindustan Pencils P. Limited V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jammu & Kashmir - 2015 (6) TMI 334 - CESTAT NEW DELHI earlier jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nefit of exemption Notification on a vague ground that mobile storage system falling under Chapter 7216.10 & 7326.90 is like an office furniture and cannot be considered as office equipment. The Notification No. 1/95 grants exemption in respect of goods supplied to a 100% EOU. In other words it is an end use based exemption. The duty liability is to be determined at the time and place of removal from the manufacturing unit and consequently its applicable is to be applied at the time of clear .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the manufacturing unit. The Tribunal set aside the order. Jurisdictional issue In Flextronics Technologies (I) P. Limited V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore - 2010 (8) TMI 342 - CESTAT, BANGALORE the manufacturer classified the Aluminum Tables under Heading 8537 of Central Excise Tariff. The appellants took credit on the basis of the invoice. The Commissioner disallowed the credit on the finding that Aluminium tables are classifiable under the Heading 9403 and such goods are not co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

used as a preventive against termite infestation and powder falling. The appellant classified the product under 3808.10 applicable to insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, weedicides and pesticides and discharged the duty liability. The Revenue was of the view that the product falls under the Heading 3808.90. The Tribunal held that as per Dy. Chief Chemist s test report, product literature and technical literature the said product more appropriately classifiable under sub heading 3808.10 as ins .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mpugned order. Suppression of fact In Rydak Syndicate Limited V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata - II - 2010 (11) TMI 932 - CESTAT KOLKATA the Tribunal found that the appellants filed a declaration on 02.06.1998 declaring that they are clearing printed sheets and other declaration on 23.11.1998 for pouches of papers clearing classification under Heading 4817 of the Tariff. Both the declarations were acknowledged by the Revenue. As the appellants filed the necessary declarations, the alle .....

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