9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of manufactured product under Tariff Item No. 68, excise duty on rayon content in exported warpsheets, short levy on rayon cord.
The judgment by the High Court of Bombay involved a dispute regarding the classification of a product manufactured by a company under Tariff Item No. 68. The petitioners contended that the product, known as warpsheet or tyre cord warpsheet, should be classified under Tariff Item No. 22 or alternatively under Tariff Item No. 18. The respondent department argued that the product is an independent item freely sold in the market and should be classified under Tariff Item No. 68. The court analyzed the nature of the warpsheet, which consisted of rayon cords held together by cotton threads, and compared it to a reported judgment by the Supreme Court in a similar case. The court held that the warpsheet is essentially a rayon cord and not a new distinct product, therefore classifying it under Tariff Item No. 18 instead of Tariff Item No. 68. This decision was based on the premise that the warpsheet, being a component used in the manufacture of tyres, did not qualify as a separate marketable product under Tariff Item No. 68. Regarding the excise duty on the rayon content in exported warpsheets, the court ruled that since the warpsheet was considered a rayon cord and exempt from levy for export under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, the duty claimed by the department was not applicable. This decision also disposed of the show cause notices related to the levy of excise on the rayon content in exported warpsheets. The court further addressed the issue of short levy on rayon cord, which had already been decided in favor of the petitioners by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. The court referred to the department's consistent classification of rayon cord under Tariff Item No. 18 since 1983, thereby rejecting the department's contention in the third show cause notice. Lastly, the court dismissed the department's argument that the petitioners should pursue an alternate statutory remedy through an appeal to the Tribunal, stating that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was valid based on the Supreme Court's decision and the department's own actions. The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and withdrew the requirement for the petitioners to furnish a Bank Guarantee.
|
