9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 291 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods - Newprint-in-reels - to be classified under chapter sub-heading No. 4801.00 or under Tariff heading No. 48.23? - benefit of Notification No. 23/98-CE dated 1.8.1998 availed by suppression of material facts, or not - HELD THAT - The Revenue has challenged the decision of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the Newsprint in question can be classified under chapter heading No. 4823.90 only rather than chapter heading No. 4801.00. The other ground for challenging the decision of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is that the earlier decision of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) giving the benefit of notification to the respondent is under challenge before this Tribunal. But both the grounds are not sustainable in law - The earlier decision of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) whereby he classified the impugned items under sub heading No. 4801.00 was upheld by the Tribunal by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue in COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH VERSUS NACHIKETA PAPER LTD. 2009 (2) TMI 559 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI . It is noted that for the subsequent period also the Additional Commissioner has given the benefit to the respondent of Notification No. 23/98-CE dated 1.8.1998. Since, the Revenue has not filed any appeal against the decision of the Tribunal whereby the benefit of the notification was extended to the respondent and keeping in view that for the subsequent period, the Additional Commissioner has also given the benefit of the said notification to the respondent, there are no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is dismissed. Appeal of Revenue dismissed.
Issues:
Classification of goods under Chapter sub-heading, Interpretation of exemption notification, Applicability of previous decisions Classification of goods under Chapter sub-heading: The appeal involved a dispute regarding the classification of goods by the Revenue under Chapter sub-heading No. 4801.00. The department contended that the goods should be classified under a different heading, challenging the decision of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Ld. AR for the Revenue argued that the exemption notification should be strictly construed and that the previous decision relied upon was not applicable. However, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent supported the classification under Chapter sub-heading 4801.00, referencing previous decisions in favor of the respondent. The Tribunal examined the arguments and upheld the earlier decision classifying the goods under sub-heading No. 4801.00, dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. Interpretation of exemption notification: The dispute also revolved around the interpretation of the exemption notification No. 23/98-CE dated 1.8.1998. The department alleged that the respondent wrongly availed the benefit of the notification without meeting the criteria, leading to the evasion of central excise duty. The department issued a show cause notice, and the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand. However, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondent. The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties, noting that the Revenue had not appealed previous decisions where the benefit of the notification was extended to the respondent. As a result, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and dismissed it. Applicability of previous decisions: The judgment highlighted the importance of previous decisions in determining the outcome of the appeal. The Tribunal referenced earlier decisions where the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and the Additional Commissioner had classified the goods under Chapter sub-heading 4801.00 and extended the benefit of the exemption notification to the respondent. Since the Revenue had not challenged these decisions and considering the consistency in classification for the subsequent period, the Tribunal found no grounds to sustain the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of upholding previous decisions and dismissed the appeal accordingly.
|
