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 - 2008 (4) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2008 (4) TMI 620 - AT - Central Excise

Issues involved: Classification of goods under Notification No. 60/88, applicability of exemption, classification under heading 48.01 or 48.02, evidence of paper usage as newsprint.

Classification under Notification No. 60/88: The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the exemption under Notification No. 60/88 was available only until a certain date and merged with Notification No. 8/96. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed duty demanded by denying exemption under Notification No. 60/88, even though the appellants had paid duty at a different rate applicable to heading No. 48.01. The classification under heading 48.01 was supported by relevant orders, and the appellants were confirmed as manufacturers of Newsprint specified under the Newsprint control order. The demand confirmed in the impugned order was set aside, along with the penalty imposed.

Applicability of exemption and classification: The revenue contended that the goods in question were not classifiable as newsprint under sub-heading 48.01 but under heading 48.02, as the paper was cleared to customers not in the newspaper printing business. The absence of evidence that the paper was intended for printing newspapers led to the argument that the impugned order was not sustainable. The contention was based on Chapter Note 3 of Chapter 48 of the tariff, which defines newsprint as paper intended for printing newspapers.

Evidence of paper usage as newsprint: The Tribunal noted that the paper in question was cleared to entities not involved in newspaper printing, such as education boards. Without evidence showing that the consignments were intended for printing newspapers, the impugned order was deemed unsustainable. The absence of proof regarding the paper's intended use for printing newspapers led to the decision to set aside the impugned order and restore the adjudication order, ultimately allowing the appeal.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates