Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2894

Classification of Cast Iron Plates for Emery Machinery.

Case:-COMMR. OF C. EX., LUCKNOW VERSUSRAILWAY EQUIPMENT AND ENGG. WORKS

Citation:- 2015 (325) E.L.T. 184 (Tri. - Del.)

Brief Facts:-This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against OIA No. 127-CE/LKO/2006, dated 28-8-2006. The issue involved is whether Cast Iron Plates (CI Plates) for Emery machinery manufactured by the appellant will be classified under Chapter Heading 7325.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), 1985 or under Chapter Heading 8437.00. Commissioner (Appeals) under OIA dated 28-8-2006 classified the same under Heading 8437.00. None appeared on behalf of the respondent and there is also no request for adjournment.

Appellants Contention:-Shri R.K. Mishra (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that the factory of the respondent has been closed and CI Plates and machinery involved have been disposed of. That at the time of adjudication, the machine used for the manufacturing was not available for visit and the actual process of manufacture undertaken was not verifiable. That such a verification is not possible now either by the visit to the respondent or to their end-users. That directions given by Hon’ble CESTAT in remand proceedings cannot be carried out. Further argued that as per C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 23/89, dated 28-7-1989, superseded by Circular No. 225/59/1996-CX., dated 1-7-1996, castings taken out of castings moulds up to the stage of proof machining and further machining will be classifiable under Chapter Heading 73. It was his case that the order passed by the First Appellate Authority should not have made classification of CI Plates under Chapter 8437.00.

Respondents Contention:- None appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

Reasoning Of Judgement:-Heard learned (AR) and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present proceedings is the classification of Cast Iron Plates for Emery machinery manufactured by the respondent, whether under Central Excise Tariff Heading 7325.10 or 8437.00. Commissioner (Appeals), while holding the classification of the CI Plates for Emery machinery under 8437.00, has relied upon one report from Superintendent of Central Excise, Range Mathura; wherein it has been reported that “manufacturing study of CI Plates reveals that the moulds are prepared for Cast Iron Plates with the help of its pattern and then molten metal is poured into the moulds. That after solidification and cooling the cast iron plates are taken out of moulds and cleaned, brushed and battled. That after cleaning of Cast Iron Plates the same are sent to emery machine industries and does not need any subsequent machining”. From the above report reproduced in the order of the First Appellate Authority it is correctly held that the CI plates for emery machinery was classifiable under Heading 8437 of the CETA, 1985. If the manufacturing unit is lying closed at the moment then the case of the Revenue cannot be decided in their favour because it is the responsibility of the Department to establish, with documentary evidence, that the claim made by the manufacturing unit is not acceptable or that other finishing activities were required to be done on cast iron plates for emery machinery. In view of the above observations, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed by upholding the order passed by the First Appellate Authority.

Decision:-Appeal dismissed.

Comment:- The gist of the case is that if the department is disputing manufacturer’s or assessee’s claim for classification of goods under a particular heading, responsibility lies on department to prove their claim with documentary evidence. And, accordingly the cast iron plates for emery machine are correctly classified under Heading 8437 of Central Excise Tariff.

Prepared By:- Neelam Jain
 

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com