Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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