9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 471 - HC - CustomsIntermediate products - staple fibers - expansion of meaning of the term staple fiber at Sl.No.10 of Notification No.30/2004 dated 09.07.2004 to include tow in total disregard to meaning of staple fibers as is understood in the trade parlance - benefit of captive consumption in notification no.67/95 dated 16.03.1995 - rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - Staple Fiber at Sl.No.10 of the Notification No.30/2004 dated 09.07.2004 is applicable in respect of the polyester top falling under the head 5506/5507 or not - interpretation of notification no.30/2004 CE dated 09.07.2004 which clearly provides at Sl.No.10 exemption is available if goods falling under the tariff hearing 5506/5507 are manufactured from staple fibers procured from outside subjected to carding, combing or any other process required for spinning by the manufacturer who does not have the facility in his factory including (plant and equipment while producing goods under heading Nos.56501 5502 5504 5505. HELD THAT - There is considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, that the appellant having not raised a claim before the Liquidator, no approval of the adjudicating authority having been obtained, filing of an appeal under Section 130 of the Act is wholly untenable, more particularly, when the distribution of the assets is already made. As per Section 238 of the Code, the provisions of the Code overrides other laws that are inconsistent with the Code. Moreover, the questions raised relates to classification of goods and interpretation of exemption notification. In COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE-1 VERSUS M/S MOTOROLA INDIA LTD. 2019 (9) TMI 229 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Apex Court has held that determination of a question relating to the classification of goods under the Tariff and whether or not they are covered by an exemption notification would not be amenable to the jurisdiction under Section 130 of the Act. The appeal stands dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to seek redressal of the grievances before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law.
Issues:
1) Interpretation of the term staple fiber in a customs notification 2) Liability of duty on intermediate products like polyester top 3) Compliance with CENVAT Credit Rules and eligibility for benefit of captive consumption 4) Interpretation of the term staple fiber in relation to the notification 5) Applicability of the term Staple Fiber to polyester top under a specific notification 6) Correct interpretation of notification no.30/2004 CE dated 09.07.2004 Issue 1 - Interpretation of the term staple fiber: The appeal challenged the Customs Tribunal's decision to expand the meaning of staple fiber in a notification. The High Court examined if the Tribunal was justified in including tow as staple fiber, contrary to trade understanding. The Court analyzed the notification's language and trade parlance to determine if the Tribunal's interpretation was correct. Issue 2 - Liability of duty on intermediate products: The Court considered whether intermediate products like polyester top, used in manufacturing final fabric, were liable for duty and penalty. The question revolved around the duty implications of such intermediate goods under the relevant regulations. Issue 3 - Compliance with CENVAT Credit Rules: The judgment addressed whether the respondent complied with CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and was eligible for the benefit of captive consumption under a specific notification. The Court examined the respondent's adherence to the rules and their entitlement to the mentioned benefit. Issue 4 - Interpretation of staple fiber in relation to notification: The Court evaluated if the Tribunal erred in interpreting the term staple fiber in a notification to cover both tow and staple fiber. The analysis focused on the notification's wording and the scope of materials included under the term staple fiber. Issue 5 - Applicability of term Staple Fiber to polyester top: The High Court reviewed whether the term Staple Fiber in a specific notification applied to polyester top falling under a particular category. The question centered on the correct interpretation and application of the notification to the specific materials mentioned. Issue 6 - Correct interpretation of notification no.30/2004 CE: The judgment examined the correct interpretation of notification no.30/2004 CE dated 09.07.2004. The Court analyzed the exemption conditions outlined in the notification, focusing on the tariff headings and processes specified for eligibility. In the final decision, the Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable due to the respondent's liquidation process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The Court highlighted that since no claim was raised before the Liquidator, filing an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act was untenable. The judgment emphasized the Code's precedence over inconsistent laws and cited relevant case law on the jurisdiction regarding classification of goods and exemption notifications. The appellant was directed to seek redressal through the appropriate forum, in line with the law, with all original documents returned to the appellant's counsel.
|
