TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court remits product classification decision, emphasizes detailed evaluation</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUSTOMS, SURAT-II Versus NIRMALA DYECHEM</h3> The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment on the classification of 'Domex Power Cleaner/Domex All Around Home Cleaner' and remitted the matter ... Cleaning preparations - Alleged that the products of appellant were classifiable under Heading 38.08ibid by tribunal - Revenue argued that there qualities not bring them above mention heading - Matter remitted to Commissioner Issues:Classification of product 'Domex Power Cleaner/Domex All Around Home Cleaner' under Central Excise Tariff Heading 34.02 or Heading 38.08.Analysis:The case involves the classification of the product 'Domex Power Cleaner/Domex All Around Home Cleaner' under the Central Excise Tariff Act. The respondent-assessee classified the product under Heading 38.08 as a disinfectant, while the Revenue claimed it should be under Heading 34.02. The Tribunal held that the product should be classified as a disinfectant under Heading 38.08. The main issue for consideration is whether the product is principally used as a disinfectant or a cleaning preparation.The arguments presented by both parties revolved around the interpretation of the relevant headings. The Revenue argued that the word 'disinfectant' in Heading 38.08 should be interpreted in conjunction with other words like insecticides, rodenticides, etc., which are all meant for killing germs or animals. On the other hand, the assessee argued that the product should be classified based on its undiluted form, emphasizing its manufacturing process.The Supreme Court highlighted the need for a deeper consideration of the matter by the Commissioner. It pointed out that the Tribunal and Commissioner did not adequately consider the rules of interpretation of the Schedule, explanatory notes, and harmonized commodity description. The Court emphasized that the product's active agents and surface active function should be evaluated to determine its classification accurately.In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and remitted the matter to the Commissioner for fresh consideration. The parties were allowed to present fresh evidence before the Commissioner if they desired. Importantly, the Court clarified that the extended period of limitation under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act would not apply in this case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
