Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law /2016-17/3325

Mis-classification of unglazed ceramic tiles under Item 6906 10 00
Case:-COMMR. OF C. EX.,CUS. & S.T. BELGAUM VersusMURDESHWAR CERAMICS LTD.
Citation:-2016 (337) E.L.T. 384 (Tri. - Bang.)

Brief facts:-This appeal is by Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum against the Order of Commissioner (A). The Commissioner (A) in his order-in-appeal rejected the Department’s appeal against two Orders-in-Original dated 21-9-1999 and 14-7-2000 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Hubli Division. The issue concerned is with mis-classification of unglazed ceramic tiles under Item 6906 10 00. Department issued two show cause notices to the assessee viz., M/s. Murudeswara Ceramics Ltd. on the issue of misclassification of glazed ceramic tiles as unglazed tiles resulting in short-payment of Central Excise as mentioned in the show cause notice. These show cause notices were disposed of by Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hubli and Deputy Commissioner, Hubli respectively, wherein under both the orders, proceedings initiated were dropped against assessee viz., M/s. Murudeswara Ceramics Ltd. The Commissioner (A) also approved the Orders-in-Original by rejecting the Department’s appeal.

Revenue was now before this Tribunal against the said order of Commissioner (A). Revenue represented by learned AR, Shri Mohd. Yousaf, Addl. Commissioner (AR) has argued that the vitrified ceramic tiles under question were to be treated as glazed tiles and the of lower authorities which have classified the items as unglazed under Chapter Heading 6905 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 were to be set aside.
Appellant’s contention:-The defendant advocate, Shri S. Raghu had mainly argued that respective show cause notices were issued because of audit objection report by Accountant General’s Audit party. Later manufacturing process of both glazed and unglazed ceramic tiles were explained and report of Chemical Examiner in this regard was also submitted. It was also mentioned that the case law of Wipro Ltd. - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 398 (Tribunal) has defined the material as unglazed tile and that the item is factually unglazed ceramic tile was finally accepted by the Accountant General’s office. It was mentioned that Chemical Examiner, Madras’ report, fully supported the stand of the assessee viz., M/s. Murudeswara Ceramics Ltd. The respondent further argues that it is a clear-cut finding that there was no mis-classification of the item viz., unglazed ceramic tiles by them which was actually the initial contention of the audit party; the classification claimed by the assessee under Chapter Heading 6905 is correct and proper.
Respondent’s contention:-The Revenue has reiterated the submissions given in the appeal.
Reasoning of Judgement:-After consideration of the facts on record and the submissions of both the sides, it was found that there was no case in respect of Revenue’s stand as it have not been able to counter the report of Chemical Examiner, Madras, which had supported that item in question is unglazed tile deserving classification under sub-heading 6905 00. It was also noted in the Order-in-Original itself that Department had written to Accountant General and this objection was settled between the Department and the Office of the Accountant General. Consequently, there was no substantial reasons to classify the item in question viz., unglazed ceramic tiles in any other sub-heading other than 6905 00. Consequently, Department’s stand that classification for the item has to be under Chapter Heading 6906 of Central Excise Tariff Act did not stand any merit. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was hereby dismissed.
Decision:- Appeal allowed
Comment:- The above case revolves around the classification of unglazed ceramic tiles.In view of undisputed test report of chemical examiner that manufactured tiles are unglazed, it was held that classification thereof upheld in Heading 6905 of Central Excise Tariff and not under Heading 6906 was correct.
 
Prepared by:- Praniti Lalwani
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