Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2007 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2007 (11) TMI 480 - AT - Central Excise

Issues: Classification of goods under tariff entry Heading 70.10 for duty assessment.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata, the issue revolved around the classification of goods under tariff entry Heading 70.10 for duty assessment. The appellants claimed the goods to be Founts for kerosene wick lamps and glass chimneys for lanterns. The relevant tariff entry under Heading 70.10 specifically included glass founts for kerosene wick lamps and glass chimneys for lanterns. The tariff rate of duty for these items was nil due to their essential use by the poorest section of society.

The appellants argued that no dispute was raised by the Department regarding the classification of these items before 1-4-03. However, for the period from 1-4-2003 to 31-3-2004, the Department requested end-use certificates for these items and denied the nil rate of duty. The appellants contended that the glass items in question were solely for kerosene lamps and lanterns with no alternative use. They emphasized that the Department lacked any evidence to support a different use of these items.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the Department's actions were arbitrary as they had consistently allowed nil duty assessment for the impugned goods previously. The Tribunal noted that the tariff itself did not mandate the need for end-use certificates. Furthermore, the Department failed to provide any evidence demonstrating an alternative use for the glass items apart from kerosene lamps and lanterns. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned order, waiving the predeposit requirement, and allowing the appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of evidence and consistency in duty assessment decisions by the Department.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates