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>CESTAT Mumbai: Pin Mailer Classification Ruling Balances Duty & Financial Hardship</h1> <h3>ANIL PRINTERS LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NASHIK</h3> ANIL PRINTERS LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NASHIK - 2014 (312) E.L.T. 639 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Classification of products under Central Excise Tariff - Chapter 48 vs. Chapter 49Financial hardship claimed by the applicantsClassification Issue:The applicants sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty, contending that their products should be classified under Chapter 49 of the Central Excise Tariff, while the Revenue classified them under Chapter 48. The main dispute centered around the classification of pin mailer, which the Revenue argued was used as computer stationery to communicate secret pin numbers to bank customers. The Revenue maintained that the process undertaken by the applicants was incidental to the primary use of the product, justifying classification under Chapter 48. The Tribunal found that the pin mailer was printed continuous computer stationery used by banks in dot-matrix printers to print PIN numbers, leading to the decision that total waiver of duty was not warranted. However, considering the financial hardship claimed by the applicants due to weak market conditions, the Tribunal directed a deposit of Rs.15,00,000 within eight weeks, with the remaining amount of duty, interest, and penalty waived during the appeal's pendency.Financial Hardship Issue:The applicants pleaded financial hardship, citing severe financial crisis due to weak market conditions. Despite the Revenue's arguments and previous classifications of similar items under Chapter 48, the Tribunal acknowledged the financial difficulties faced by the applicants. Consequently, the Tribunal balanced the classification issue with the applicants' financial situation, directing a partial deposit and waiving the remaining duty, interest, and penalty during the appeal process. The decision aimed to address the applicants' financial challenges while ensuring compliance with the Central Excise Tariff classifications, providing a nuanced approach to the case.This judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, highlighted the intricate balance between classification under the Central Excise Tariff and the financial circumstances of the applicants. By considering both aspects, the Tribunal arrived at a decision that required a partial deposit while waiving the remaining amount during the appeal's pendency, reflecting a nuanced understanding of the legal and economic complexities involved in the case.
TaxTMI 