Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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