TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Tribunal Upholds Reclassification of Transformers: Key Ruling on Central Excise Tariff</h1> The Tribunal upheld the reclassification of EHT transformer, Line Driver transformer, and SMPS transformer under Heading 8504.00 instead of sub-heading ... Classifiaction Issues:Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff - EHT transformer, Line Driver transformer, and SMPS transformer.Analysis:The case involved the classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff, specifically EHT transformer, Line Driver transformer, and SMPS transformer. The appellants had initially classified these goods under sub-heading 8529.00 with a specific excise duty rate. However, a show cause notice was issued to change the classification to Heading 8504.00, resulting in a demand for additional duty. The Additional Collector upheld the reclassification and confirmed the differential duty. The Tribunal initially allowed the appeal based on a time-bar issue but was later remitted the case by the Supreme Court for deciding the classification and other issues.The Revenue argued that the disputed items, being transformers, should be correctly classified under Heading 8504.00 based on Note 2(a) of Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff. The amendment to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act allowed for the recovery of short-levy if goods had undergone such a situation. The Revenue contended that the department could recover the duty short paid for the past six months if the classification was modified without any fraud or collusion. The specific heading for transformers and the provisions of Section 11A supported the Revenue's stance on correct classification and duty recovery.The Tribunal, in its final order, emphasized that the classification of the disputed transformers should be determined as per Note 2(a) of Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff. This note stipulates that parts included in specific headings of Chapters 84 and 85 must be classified accordingly. As there was a specific entry for transformers under Heading 85.04, the disputed transformers were deemed to be correctly classified under Heading 8504.00, not under the appellants' claimed Heading 85.29. Consequently, the order of the Additional Collector was deemed lawful, upheld, and the appeal was rejected.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
