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 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