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>Classification of Roller Blinds in Central Excise Tariff Upheld with Duty & Penalties</h1> <h3>M/s WALLTRACTS INDIA PVT LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-II</h3> M/s WALLTRACTS INDIA PVT LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-II - 2013 (30) S.T.R. 55 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Classification of roller blinds made of non-textile materials under Central Excise Tariff.2. Whether the roller/vertical blinds come into existence at the site or in the factory.3. Applicability of duty and penalty on the roller/vertical blinds.4. Disclosure of manufacturing activity to the central excise authorities by the appellant.5. Requirement of pre-deposit for hearing the appeals and stay of recovery.Issue 1: Classification of roller blinds made of non-textile materials under Central Excise TariffThe dispute revolved around the classification of roller blinds made of non-textile materials under the Central Excise Tariff. The Commissioner held that roller/vertical blinds made of fabrics from different chapters are classifiable under specific sub-headings of the Tariff. The duty demand, interest, and penalties were confirmed based on this classification.Issue 2: Origin of roller/vertical blinds at site or in the factoryThe appellant argued that the roller/vertical blinds come into existence at the site during installation and become part of the immovable property. However, the Tribunal found that the blinds were fixed to aluminum tubes in the factory, including the installation of motors in motorized blinds. Thus, the blinds were deemed to have originated in the factory premises.Issue 3: Applicability of duty and penaltyThe Commissioner confirmed the duty demand, interest, and penalties on the appellant company and the General Manager under specific provisions of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a specific amount within a stipulated period to waive the pre-deposit requirement for further proceedings.Issue 4: Disclosure of manufacturing activityThe appellant contended that they had treated their activity as a service, paying service tax under different categories to the central excise authorities. However, it was questioned whether the manufacturing of roller/vertical blinds was disclosed to the authorities. The Tribunal noted that the question of limitation could be examined during the final hearing.Issue 5: Requirement of pre-deposit and stay of recoveryThe Tribunal directed the appellant company to deposit a specific amount within a set timeframe to waive the pre-deposit requirement for the duty demand, interest, and penalties. Compliance was to be reported by a specified date, and recovery was stayed pending the appeal's disposal.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the classification, origin, applicability of duty and penalties, disclosure obligations, and pre-deposit requirements concerning the manufacturing and installation of roller/vertical blinds made of non-textile materials under the Central Excise Tariff.
TaxTMI 