Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2011-12/1508

Drawback - Classification of Tights or Leggings

Case: IN RE: MERIDIAN APPARELS LTD., CHENNAI
 

Citation: 2012 (275) E.L.T. 258 (G.O.I)

Issue:- Drawback - Whether Tights/Leggings classifiable under S.S.No. 611507 of Drawback Schedule irrespective of the Export garment being Unisex or not?
 
Brief Facts:- Applicant is manufactures-cum-exporters of garments. They had exported, girls Trouser (96% cotton and 4% Elasthane Knitted Girls Trouser) vide shipping bill nos 3400 dated 18-5-2009 and claimed Drawback rate at 8.80% of FOB by classifying under the drawback schedules SI.No. 6104. However the lower authority held the said goods as “legging” and classified the goods under DBK schedule 640699 and released drawback only @1.00% on the FOB value. Hence the applicant filled a set of letter dated 30-06-2009 on 1-07-2009 and 17-07-2009 on 05-08-2009 before the lower authority, seeking revision of classification to 61040101 and also filed supplementary claims for these two shipping bills. Against this, Lower Authority under the impugned order held that “96% Cotton & 4% Elasthane Knitted Girls Trouser as knitted Girls “Leggings” under heading 640699 of the DBK schedule for the purpose of granting Drawback. Being aggrieved by the said Order-In-Original, Applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide Order-In-Appeal under provision modified for T.S.H as SH No. 6112990 of TCH for classification and T.I.-611507 for Drawback Purpose. Being aggrieved by the Impugned Order-In-Appeal, The applicant has filed this Revision Application under Section 129DD of Customs Act, 1962 before Central government.
 
Applicant’s Contention:- The Applicant has filed this Revision Application under Section 129DD of Customs Act, 1962 before Central government on the following ground-
 
- Goods falling under Chapter 6115 are unisex: Chapter 6115 (Page 15-18) consists of Panty hose, tights, stockings, socks and other hosiery. HSN clarify that this heading covers the goods with-out distinction between those for women or girls and those for men or boys. (Page 41-42) This implies that the goods falling under Chapter 6115 are unisex. That is, these garments can be worn either by men or women or by boy or girl. For example goods like stockings, socks, tights, etc. can be worn both by men/women or boys/girls.
 
Whereas the "tight-fitting trousers" internationally called as "Leggings" will be worn only by ladies and not by Gents. In other words, when a garment is specific to a use of particular sex only, it cannot fall under Chapter 6115; since 6115 does not distinguish between men and women.
 
Further the HSN under Chapter 6115 states that panty hose or tights are designed to cover the feet and legs (hose) and the lower part of the body up to the waist (panty) (Page 43-44). The need to define "waist" as "waist (panty)" by HSN may probably mean that such tights are extended only up to the place where panties are generally worn up to hip or waist and not up to the place where panties are worn. Hence on this ground, the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) deserves to be set aside. There is no dispute that what Appellant had exported are Girls' Trousers. It is clear that the Commissioner (Appeals) also holds this view in his Order in para 4-5 as follows : - (Page 19-40) "On observation of the samples sent by the lower authority, it is noticed that it is an elastic hipped tight trouser of size 156 cm/34 that would cover from waist to ankle, made of knitted fabric". Hence as per the observation made by the Commissioner (Appeals), it is beyond any dispute that what we had exported are "trousers" only. Once the goods are "Ladies trousers" it is appropriate to classify only under 6104 and not under 6115. From the above it is obvious that our export garments are "tight-trousers" only.
 
- The term "trouser" has been defined in HSN under Chapter 6103 in para (D) as :- (Page 47-48) "Trouser means garments which envelop each legs separately, covering the knees and usually reaching down to or below the ankles; these garments usually stop at the waist; the presence of braces does not cause these garments to lose the essential character of trousers." Further in para (F) in HSN it has been stated as :- (Page 49-50) "Shorts means "trousers" which do not cover the knee". This implies even shorts are construed to be trousers only. In other words, whether the trousers are fights or loose or shorts, still they are all called as "trousers" only. They further submit that the garments what we had exported is made out of fabric consisting 96% Cotton with 4% Elasthane. (Page 1-2 & 3-4) In this scenario, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that our goods fall under Chapter 6115 deserves to be set aside.  There is no dispute in this issue before the original authority. When the garments consists 96% Cotton and 4% Elasthane, it must be categorised only under DBK Schedule 6104 01 01 as goods made out of "Cotton". In the recent Drawback Schedule announced by the Ministry of Finance under Circular No. 35/2010 dated 17th September, 2010, it has been clarified under Customs Notification 84/2010 dated 17th September, 2010 in para 13 of Notes and Conditions as: - (Page 51-56) "The garment or made-up of cotton or wool or man made fibre or silk or non silk shall mean that the content in it of the respective fibre is 85% or more by weight". The said circular clarifies when as item is to be classified as cotton or blend. If the content is 85% or more then such content will determine the drawback rates. Our goods are made out of 96% Cotton with 4% Elasthane. As cotton content is more than 85%, our goods are to be classified as goods made out of "Cotton" only. In this scenario, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) classifying our goods 611507 incorrect. Hence on this ground also the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) deserves to be set aside.
 
Finally the applicant prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and allow their goods under DBK schedule 6104 01 01.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:-  Government noted that  whatever the applicant Exporter is interpreting & explaining in all his above ground is all based on his basic assumption that whatever has been written/declared in the shipping bill is 100% correct therefore Central Government takes up this case matter with basic objection as being true and substantial i.e. whatever goods are exported were not conforming to normal trousers but were definitely of other particular category which the examining & exporting officer found as  “leggings” but the Appellate Authorities inferred the same as tight-fitting stretchy single piece Knitted Garments more  akin to ‘tights’ leggings eligible for DBK under S.S.No. 611507. The Applicant has not put forth any new ground in the Revision Application.  Government notes the Commissioner (Appeal) herein has systematically examined each & every aspect of impugned export by calling for, not only all the records but also representative samples which was provided by the applicant and forwarded by the lower authorities. Government finds the above study of the Commissioner (Appeal) as detailed in para 4 (4.5 to 4.12) of impugned Order-In-Appeal are well reasoned and proper. Therefore Government is in full conformity with final view as concluded by the Commissioner (Appeal) that the good are rightly classifiable under DBK S.S.T. No. 611507- irrespective of the export garment being unisex or not. Government find no ground for interference in the same therefore they uphold the impugned Order-In-Appeal for being same as perfectly legal & proper. The Revision Application is thus rejected for being devoid of merits
 
Decision:- Application rejected.
 

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