1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal confirms duty demand for misclassified 'Plastic Satranj' product</h1> The Tribunal upheld the classification of the 'Plastic Satranj' product under Chapter 46, confirming duty demand due to incorrect duty exemption claims by ... Classification - Boardβs clarification - Demand - Cenvat/Modvat - Cum-duty price Issues: Classification of 'Plastic Satranj' product and confirmation of duty demand.Classification of 'Plastic Satranj' Product:The appellants manufactured 'Plastic Satranj' and initially classified it under Charter sub-heading 3922.90 of the CETA, claiming duty exemption under Notification No. 132/86-C.E. Later, they reclassified it under Chapter 39, but only provisionally approved under sub-heading 4601.00 of Chapter 46. The issue was whether the correct classification should be effective from the date of the Board's Circular on 16-6-1987 or earlier. The Tribunal held that the product was always classifiable under Chapter 46, and the Circular merely clarified the classification. The appellants wrongly claimed duty exemption, leading to a demand for duty payment, which was rightly confirmed.Duty Calculation and Modvat Credit:The appellants argued that duty calculation should consider the Modvat credit on inputs used in production and the cum-duty price principle. The Tribunal agreed that the duty amount calculation by the Department was incorrect. The appellants were entitled to claim Modvat credit and the cum-duty price principle, citing precedents like Bharat Wagon & Engg. case and C.C.E., Delhi v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. case. As these aspects were not considered, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, with instructions to consider the Modvat claim and cum-duty price, affording the appellants a hearing opportunity.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the classification of the 'Plastic Satranj' product under Chapter 46 but remanded the case for a reevaluation of the duty amount payable by the appellants. The decision emphasized the need to consider Modvat credit and the cum-duty price principle in the duty calculation process.