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 Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1995 (4) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1995 (4) TMI 156 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Application for waiver of demand for fluorescent paper and paper board.
2. Classification dispute between Heading 4810.10 and 4811.90 of CETA, 1985.
3. Failure to disclose Chemical Examiner's report leading to violation of natural justice principles.
4. Remand for fresh determination of classification.

Analysis:

1. The case involves an application for waiver of a demand amounting to Rs. 62,62,580 for fluorescent paper and paper board manufactured by the appellants. The appeal was initially for waiver but was remanded due to the need for compliance with natural justice principles.

2. The dispute arises from the classification of the goods under Heading 4810.10 and 4811.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants were initially clearing the products under Heading 4810.10 based on an approved classification. However, proceedings were initiated to change the classification to 4811.90, leading to a disagreement.

3. The key issue in the case was the failure to disclose the full text of the Chemical Examiner's report, which played a crucial role in the classification decision. The appellants argued that the report was not provided to them during the adjudication proceedings, depriving them of a fair opportunity to present their case. This lack of disclosure was deemed a violation of natural justice principles.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions from both sides, agreed with the appellants regarding the failure to adhere to natural justice principles. The non-disclosure of the Chemical Examiner's report in the show cause notice and its subsequent use in the adjudication order was deemed unfair. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Assistant Collector for a fresh determination of the classification. The Assistant Collector was directed to provide the appellants with the full text of the Chemical Examiner's report and allow them an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the law.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates