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 reclassifies Bentonite import, duty revised, appeal time-barred, no fines</h1> The Tribunal held that the imported Bentonite should be classified under CTH 3802 instead of 2508. Duty was to be paid accordingly, except for one appeal ... - Issues: Classification of imported goods under CTH 3802 or 2508, applicability of Section 11A of the Customs Act, 1962, need for reference to Larger Bench.Classification of Goods: The appellants imported Bentonite and sought classification under Heading 2508, but Revenue classified it under CTH 3802. The main issue was whether activated Bentonite should be classified under CTH 3802 or 2508.Applicability of Section 11A: The appellant argued that as per Section 11A of the Customs Act, the Central Government can amend the schedule but not change the duty rate. Referring to a previous Tribunal order, it was claimed that activated Bentonite should be classified under CTH 3802, except for specific periods. The appellant disagreed with the Tribunal's observation on the conscious decision to include 'activated' in CTH 2508.Decision: The Tribunal found that none of the imports fell within the disputed period except for one appeal. For the other appeals, it was held that the goods were properly classifiable under CTH 3802. Thus, duty was to be paid accordingly. In the specific appeal, the demand was considered time-barred and not sustainable on merits based on a previous Tribunal decision.Penalties and Fines: Since the issue revolved around the classification of goods, no fines or penalties were deemed necessary, and they were dropped accordingly.Disposition: The appeals were disposed of based on the above findings, with no fines or penalties imposed due to the classification issue.