9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 838 - AT - Central ExcisePower not to recover the dues - Benefit of 11C - Notification No.32/2005-CE (NT) dated 22.8.2005 - Classification under 4823.90 or under 4801.00 - held that - A part of the Commissioner s order holding the classification under heading 4823.90 was also put to challenge by the respondent, before the Tribunal and vide its Final Order No.1069/2006 dated 18.5.2006, the classification of Newsprint in reel form was held to be falling under heading 4801.00 and the respondent s appeal was allowed. If that be so, the objection of the Revenue that the goods must fall under heading 4801.00 so as to earn the benefit of exemption Notification stands overruled by the Tribunal s decision and is no longer available to them - only objection of the Department is as regards the classification of the goods in question, which is no longer available to them having been set aside by the Tribunal s order passed on the appeal filed by the assessee and as such, we find no merits in the Revenue s stand - Decided against Revenue.
Issues: Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, applicability of Notification No. 32/2005-CE (NT), Tribunal's decision on classification, Revenue's appeal to Supreme Court
In this case, the Revenue appealed against a part of the Commissioner's order classifying "newsprint in reels" under heading 4823.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, while the assessee claimed classification under 4801.00. The Commissioner dropped the demand proceedings under Section 11C of Notification No.32/2005-CE (NT) and penal proceedings. The Revenue challenged the extension of the benefit of Section 11C to the respondent, arguing that the goods should be classified under 48.01 to qualify for the benefit. However, the Tribunal in a previous order held that "newsprint in reel" falls under heading 4801.00, allowing the respondent's appeal. The Revenue's objection was overruled by the Tribunal's decision, which was not stayed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Revenue's objection on the classification of goods was no longer valid, and the appeal was dismissed. This judgment primarily revolves around the classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The dispute arose from the classification of "newsprint in reels" by the Commissioner under heading 4823.90, contrary to the assessee's claim of classification under 4801.00. The Commissioner, while dropping the demand and penal proceedings, extended the benefit of Section 11C of Notification No.32/2005-CE (NT) to the respondent. The Revenue challenged this extension, contending that the goods must fall under 48.01 to qualify for the benefit. However, the Tribunal's previous decision on the matter held that "newsprint in reel" should be classified under heading 4801.00, allowing the respondent's appeal and overruling the Revenue's objection. Another crucial aspect of this case is the applicability of the Tribunal's decision on the classification of goods. The Tribunal's Final Order No.1069/2006 dated 18.5.2006 determined that "newsprint in reel" falls under heading 4801.00, contradicting the Commissioner's classification under 4823.90. This decision by the Tribunal was crucial in resolving the dispute between the Revenue and the respondent. The Tribunal's decision effectively nullified the Revenue's objection based on the classification of goods, as it had been overruled by the Tribunal's order passed on the appeal filed by the assessee. Additionally, the judgment addresses the Revenue's appeal to the Supreme Court against the Tribunal's decision. The learned DR informed that the Revenue had appealed the Tribunal's order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, it was noted that there was no stay of operation of the Tribunal's order. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision on the classification of goods remained in effect, rendering the Revenue's objection invalid. The absence of a stay order meant that the Tribunal's decision stood, and the Revenue's objection based on the classification of goods was no longer tenable. As a result, the appeal was dismissed based on the lack of merit in the Revenue's stand concerning the classification of the goods in question.
|
