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>Goods classified as labels under Heading 4821.00, not as packing material under 4811.00.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-II Versus SAPTAGIRI PACKAGING PVT. LTD.</h3> The Tribunal upheld the Joint Commissioner's decision classifying goods as printed labels under Heading 4821.00, rejecting the department's claim of them ... - Issues: Classification of goods for duty under different headings, reliance on test reports, acceptance of declarations, limitation plea, interpretation of test report, appeal by Revenue.Classification of Goods: The case involved the classification of goods cleared after job work, declared as printed labels under Heading 4821.00, but claimed by the department to be printed packing material under Heading 4811.00. The Jt. Commissioner dropped the proceedings citing lack of proof by the department and acceptance of the goods as labels by the noticee.Reliance on Test Reports: The CCE (A) found that the goods were printed labels meant to be inserted in packaging, not packaging material itself. The declarations filed for previous years were accepted by the department, and the statements of the company's Director were considered without proper classification. The test report indicated the product as a 'Paper Board Label' likely for toothbrushes, supporting the noticee's case.Acceptance of Declarations and Limitation Plea: The declarations filed by the noticee for previous years were accepted, leading to a plea of limitation. The concurrent findings of two authorities, along with physical inspection of samples, supported the classification of the goods as labels rather than packaging material.Interpretation of Test Report: The test report mentioned the product's composition, appearance, and printed matter, suggesting it as a label for toothbrushes. It did not explicitly state the product could not be used as packing material, but the report favored the noticee's case, emphasizing the likelihood of the product being used as a label.Appeal by Revenue: Despite the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal found no merit in the case. The grounds presented did not justify overturning the CCE (A)'s decision based on physical inspection of the goods. The Tribunal upheld the CCE (A)'s orders, ultimately rejecting the Revenue's appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
