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 Customs Customs + AT Customs - 1992 (10) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1992 (10) TMI 175 - AT - Customs

Issues:
The dispute involves the classification of plastic pipes, tubes, fittings, bolts, nuts, and gears for electroplating barrels.

Classification of Plastic Pipes, Tubes, Fittings, Bolts, and Nuts:
The appellants, a small scale industry manufacturing plastic articles, claimed exemption under Notification No. 132/86 for items classified under Tariff Heading 39.17 and 39.22.90. The Central Excise authorities approved their classification lists. However, a Show Cause Notice was issued proposing re-classification under Chapter 84, alleging suppression of facts. The Collector held that the items were exclusively used in chemical projects and classified them under Heading 8485.10. The appellants argued that the items should be classified under Heading 3917/3926, not under Chapter 84, citing relevant legal provisions and judgments. They contended that the goods were correctly classifiable under Chapter 39, not Chapter 84.

Classification of Gears for Electroplating Barrels:
Regarding the gears, the appellants claimed the demand was barred by limitation. The Department issued a Show Cause Notice immediately after the appellants clarified the end use of the gears for electroplating barrels. The appellants failed to disclose the end use initially, leading to the demand being upheld for the gears. The appeal was partly allowed, upholding the demand for gears but setting aside the demand for other items classified under Heading 39.17 and 39.26.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the plastic pipes, tubes, fittings, bolts, and nuts should be classified under Heading 39.17 and 39.26, not under Chapter 84. As the goods were found to be classifiable under Chapter 39, the question of suppression of facts did not arise, leading to the demand being set aside. However, the demand for gears was upheld due to the appellants' failure to disclose the end use initially.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates