The case involved a dispute over the classification of "KARA" ...

Tariff Dispute Resolved: No Suppression Found, Extended Duty Demand Dismissed, Refund Application Allowed.

June 7, 2024

Case Laws Central Excise AT

The case involved a dispute over the classification of "KARA" brand wet wipes under two different tariff items. The issue of time limitation was raised, with the appellant arguing that there was no suppression of facts as they had declared the classification and exemption notification for their product. The tribunal found in favor of the appellant, stating that there was no intent to evade duty and no suppression of facts. The demand for the extended period was set aside, and the penalty for the normal period was also waived. The appellant was directed to file a refund application for the excess amount paid, which would be adjusted against the re-quantified demand. The decision was supported by relevant case law, including a Supreme Court ruling. The appeal was allowed in part.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The case involved a dispute over the classification of "KARA" ...

Tariff Dispute Resolved: No Suppression Found, Extended Duty Demand Dismissed, Refund Application Allowed.

June 7, 2024

Case Laws Central Excise AT

You may also like:

Central excise duty exemption notification dated 01.03.2002 was denied, leading to recovery of duty, interest, and penalty. The extended period of limitation was invoked....

Demand of customs duty invoking extended period of limitation - the Tribunal noted that the appellant had provided all relevant information and documents at the time of...

Refund claim - Duty paid under protest - Doctrine of unjust enrichment - Dispute relating to classification was resolved in favor appellant assessee - The tribunal found...

Stay of demand - pre-deposit of only 20% of the disputed demand - adjustments of refunds against demand - respondent is entitled to seek pre-deposit of only 20% of the...

Duty refund claimed based on affidavit and certificate was inappropriate. Revenue did not dispute discharge of duty by appellant on revised invoice. Appellant...

Refund of Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) demanded from respondent after GST introduction on imported goods - refund of duty paid on re-import - time limitation....

The appellant sought refund of Countervailing Duty (CVD) and Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid in cash u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 142(3)...

Invoking the extended period of limitation u/s 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act for recovery of unpaid duty. The key points are: The department alleged suppression of...

Appellant filed bill of entry correctly declaring imported goods as Composite Long Rod Insulators on 9-2-2017. Issue involved interpretation of 'composite' and 'polymer'...

This notification amends various earlier customs duty notifications by making changes to the tariff item entries, descriptions, and rates of duty applicable to certain...

Demand of service tax - Extended period of limitation - In place of invoking extended period in cases of suppression of fact with an intent to evade payment of duty or...

Refund adjustments against disputed tax demands - Non invoking Section 245 - no notice or opportunity of pre-decisional hearing had been provided to the petitioner prior...

Extended period of Limitation - suppression of facts or not - The Tribunal observes that the dispute revolves around the classification of taxable services, which...

Power to issue SCN - Recovery of erroneous refund with interest - It is more than apparent that section 11A of the Excise Act cannot be resorted to by the Department for...

Initiation of CIRP - pre-existence of dispute - There was no dispute existing prior to the first demand notice and only disputes raised prior to the first demand notice...

Quick Updates: