Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

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