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 - 2005 (10) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2005 (10) TMI 484 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
Classification of goods under Chapter Heading 7308.90, eligibility for benefit of Notification Nos. 208/83 and 214/86.

Classification of Goods under Chapter Heading 7308.90:
The appellant, a manufacturer of forgings, was alleged to have exceeded the limit under Notification No. 175/86, leading to a demand for duty on goods cleared in excess of Rs. 15 lakhs. The Additional Collector classified the goods under Chapter Heading 7308.90, but the appellant contended they should be classified under 7208. The Tribunal remanded the matter, directing reclassification under 72.08 if the forgings were not subjected to further machining. The Commissioner agreed that the forgings fell under 72.08 as they were not worked beyond proof machining, citing relevant case law and Board's circular.

Eligibility for Benefit of Notification Nos. 208/83 and 214/86:
The appellant argued for the benefit of Notification Nos. 208/83 and 214/86 before the Commissioner. However, the Commissioner found no evidence of satisfaction of the conditions under these notifications, thus rejecting the claims. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner correctly rejected the appellant's contentions as they were extraneous to the remand order. The Commissioner's compliance with the remand order and legal conclusions were upheld, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the proper classification of goods under Chapter Heading 72.08 and the rejection of claims for the benefits under Notification Nos. 208/83 and 214/86. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's rejection of extraneous issues raised by the appellant and found no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal was ultimately rejected on 13-10-2005.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates