9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 680 - AT - Central ExciseMethod of Valuation - section 4 or 4A of CEA - classification of goods - HELD THAT - The order-in-original deals with each product individually and discussed in detail item-wise considering the classification claimed by both sides, literature and HSN Notes etc., expert advice and opinions on these items. The impugned order does not examine the items product-wise. There are no findings in respect of each product/ group. The impugned order is general order. The matter is remanded for fresh decision by Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues: Classification of goods under Central Excise Act, 1944 - Appeal against order-in-original
In this case, the appellant, M/s. Fosroc Chemicals (India) Pvt. Limited, filed an appeal against a single order-in-original resulting from three show cause notices. The dispute primarily revolved around the classification of goods under the Central Excise Act, 1944, specifically whether they should be assessed under Section 4 for goods classified under Chapter 38 or under Section 4A for goods classified under Chapter 32/34. The appellant had accepted liability and paid duty for some products, while disputing the classification for 12 items exclusively for industrial consumption. They presented a chart detailing these disputed items and highlighted the opinion of IIT, Chennai, which recommended classifying most goods under Chapter 38. The Commissioner (Appeals) had not provided specific findings for each product, leading to the appellate tribunal finding the order-in-original to be non-specific and not a speaking order. The tribunal noted that the impugned order did not address each item individually, lacked detailed analysis, and failed to provide specific findings for each product or group. The order-in-original was considered general and non-specific, leading to it being set aside. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision, with instructions to provide detailed findings for each disputed item. The appeal was allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals), emphasizing the need for a specific and detailed examination of each product in the classification dispute.
|
