9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 191 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods manufactured by the appellant - classifiable under Tariff Item 84369100 of CETA 1985 or under 73.14 - HELD THAT - The Division Bench of this Tribunal in the appellant s own case 2016 (9) TMI 572 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH where the identical issue was in dispute has held that Welded Wire Mesh is classifiable under Tariff Item 84369100 of CETA 1985. The said decision of the Tribunal was appealed against by the Revenue before the Hon ble Apex Court but the Hon ble Apex Court vide its order dated 20.09.2024 has dismissed the same on monetary ground. Conclusion - The goods are classified under Tariff Item 84369100. The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
The issues presented and considered in the legal judgment are:1. Whether the goods manufactured by the appellant are classifiable under Chapter Heading 73.14 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, or under Tariff Item 84369100.2. Whether the decision of the Tribunal in the appellant's earlier case is applicable to the present appeal.3. Whether the impugned order confirming the demand of central excise duty, interest, and penalty should be upheld or set aside.Issue-wise detailed analysis:Issue 1:- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal in the appellant's earlier case held that Welded Wire Mesh is classifiable under Tariff Item 84369100.- Key evidence and findings: Statements of individuals involved in the manufacturing and trading activities of the appellant, previous Tribunal decisions, and the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court.- Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the classification criteria under the Tariff Act to determine the appropriate classification of the goods.- Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant argued that the issue had been settled in their earlier case, while the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order.- Conclusions: The Tribunal followed its earlier decision and classified the goods under Tariff Item 84369100, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal of the appellant.Issue 2:- Relevant legal framework and precedents: Previous Tribunal decisions, order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, and the Central Excise Tariff Act.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal considered the applicability of its earlier decision to the present appeal.- Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal's own case law, the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, and the classification criteria under the Tariff Act.- Application of law to facts: The Tribunal analyzed whether the facts and legal position in the present case were similar to those in the appellant's earlier case.- Conclusions: The Tribunal found that the issue was no longer res integra and applied its earlier decision to classify the goods under Tariff Item 84369100.Issue 3:- Relevant legal framework and precedents: Central Excise laws and principles of classification under the Tariff Act.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal reviewed the impugned order and the arguments of both parties.- Key evidence and findings: The impugned order confirming the demand of central excise duty, interest, and penalty.- Application of law to facts: The Tribunal analyzed the facts of the case in light of the legal framework and precedents.- Conclusions: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief, if any, as per law.Significant holdings:- The Tribunal classified the goods manufactured by the appellant under Tariff Item 84369100 based on its earlier decision and set aside the impugned order confirming the demand of central excise duty.- The core principle established is that the classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, should be determined based on the specific characteristics and intended use of the goods.- The final determination on each issue was in favor of the appellant, leading to the allowance of the appeal and the setting aside of the impugned order.The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the Central Excise laws and precedents, specifically applying its earlier decision in the appellant's case to classify the goods under Tariff Item 84369100 and allowing the appeal.
|
