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 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