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>Tribunal Upholds Classification of Pressure Pans without Lid, Rejects Department's Appeal</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHENNAI Versus SIVANESAN & COMPANY</h3> COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHENNAI Versus SIVANESAN & COMPANY - 2007 (209) E.L.T. 65 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues: Classification of Pressure Pans without Lid under different headings, Departmental challenge against earlier orders, Benefit of Notifications 41/94 and 180/88, Preclusion from taking a different stand, Stay order by High Court.In this case, the Department appealed against the classification of Pressure Pans without Lid made by the Commissioner (Appeals) under different headings. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had followed earlier orders on the same issue, which the Department had not appealed against, leading to the application of the principle that the Revenue cannot take a different stand for a subsequent appeal when an earlier decision has attained finality. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal emphasized that for want of Departmental challenge against previous orders, the Department was precluded from filing the present appeal. The Tribunal highlighted the decisions in Commissioner v. Bigen Industries Limited and Commissioner v. Amar Bitumen & Allied Products Pvt. Ltd. to support the respondents' case.Moreover, the Department relied on a decision by the Tribunal in another case involving classification of Pressure Pans with Lid, which was different from the classification in the present case. The Tribunal pointed out that the benefit of Notification No. 41/94-C.E. was not available to the assessee based on this previous decision. However, the Counsel for the Respondent mentioned a stay order by the High Court regarding the decision in the other case but failed to produce a copy of the stay order. Despite having the opportunity to obtain instructions, the Department could not confirm whether the decision in the other case had been stayed by the High Court.Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the Department's appeal based on the reasons discussed, including the preclusion from taking a different stand due to the finality of earlier decisions and the lack of confirmation regarding the stay order by the High Court. The order was dictated and pronounced in open court, concluding the judgment on the classification of Pressure Pans without Lid under different headings and the application of relevant legal principles.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
