Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Government Upholds Classification of Goods as Handicrafts, Emphasizes Procedural Requirements and Fair Adjudication</h1> <h3>IN RE : DEWAN & SONS</h3> IN RE : DEWAN & SONS - 2014 (312) E.L.T. 842 (G. O. I.) Issues Involved:1. Classification of the exported goods (Iron Fire Pit).2. Validity and acceptance of certificates issued by the Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts (EPCH).3. Compliance with procedural requirements for claiming duty drawback.4. Examination of the manufacturing process to determine if the goods qualify as handicrafts.5. Adherence to directives and circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (C.B.E. & C.).6. Remand order compliance and procedural fairness.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of the Exported Goods (Iron Fire Pit):The primary issue revolves around the correct classification of the exported Iron Fire Pit. The Assistant Commissioner initially classified the goods under Heading 7321 (non-electric domestic appliances) instead of Heading 7323 (household articles) as claimed by the exporter. The Commissioner (Appeals) later reclassified the goods under Heading 7326 as handicrafts. The adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) provided differing interpretations of the appropriate classification based on the nature and use of the goods.2. Validity and Acceptance of EPCH Certificates:The department argued that the exporter failed to provide the EPCH certificate on the shipping bills at the time of export, as required by Circular No. 56/99-Cus. The Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent judgments emphasized that certificates issued by EPCH should generally be accepted unless rejected with the approval of the Commissioner and after discussions with the certificate-issuing authority, as per Circular No. 3/2010-Cus. The original adjudicating authority's unilateral rejection of the certificates without following these procedures was deemed inappropriate.3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Claiming Duty Drawback:The department contended that the absence of the EPCH certificate on the shipping bills at the time of export invalidated the claim for a higher duty drawback rate. The respondent argued that the department failed to draw samples as mandated by Circular No. 34/95-Cus. for shipments with a drawback claim exceeding Rs. 1 lakh. The Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent judgments highlighted that the procedural lapse by the department in not drawing samples could not be used to deny the drawback claim.4. Examination of the Manufacturing Process to Determine if the Goods Qualify as Handicrafts:The department argued that the manufacturing process involved significant use of machinery, which disqualified the goods from being classified as handicrafts. The respondent provided a Chartered Engineer's certificate stating that major parts of the manufacturing process were done by hand. The Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent judgments accepted this certificate as corroborative evidence, supporting the classification of the goods as handicrafts under Heading 7326.5. Adherence to Directives and Circulars Issued by C.B.E. & C.:The judgments emphasized the binding nature of C.B.E. & C. circulars, particularly Circular No. 3/2010-Cus., which mandates the acceptance of EPCH certificates unless rejected with the Commissioner's approval and after discussions with the certificate-issuing authority. The original adjudicating authority's failure to comply with these directives was a significant procedural lapse.6. Remand Order Compliance and Procedural Fairness:The case was remanded by the Government of India for de novo adjudication with specific instructions to follow C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 3/2010-Cus. and to consider the EPCH certificates. The original adjudicating authority's failure to comply with these instructions and to seek the Commissioner's approval before rejecting the certificates was highlighted as a breach of procedural fairness. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly set aside the de novo order for not adhering to the remand instructions.Conclusion:The Government upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' order, classifying the goods under Heading 7326 as handicrafts and rejecting the department's revision application. The judgments emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements, the binding nature of C.B.E. & C. circulars, and the need for fair and transparent adjudication processes. The procedural lapses by the department, particularly in rejecting the EPCH certificates without following the mandated procedures, were critical factors in the final decision.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found