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 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