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>Tobacco pouches classified under specific entry, time-barred demand upheld, department's appeal dismissed</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI Versus PARVEEN TOBACCO CO. (P) LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI Versus PARVEEN TOBACCO CO. (P) LTD. - 2013 (288) E.L.T. 433 (Tri. - Del.) Issues: Classification of goods under Chapter 24, Time-barred demandClassification Issue:The case involved a dispute regarding the correct classification of tobacco pouches marketed by the respondent under Chapter 24. The respondent argued that the goods should be classified under Entry No. 24012090, while the department contended that they fell under Entry No. 24039910. The Commissioner (Appeals) agreed with the department's classification, determining that the process of repacking raw tobacco into small pouches constituted manufacture under Chapter Note 3 of Chapter 24, leading to classification under Entry No. 24039910. The judgment upheld this classification based on the interpretation of relevant entries in Chapter 24 and the application of Chapter Note 3.Time-barred Demand Issue:The department's appeal also challenged the finding that the demand raised was time-barred. The department argued that the respondent had deceived them by misrepresenting facts in a letter seeking an addition to their central excise registration certificate. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the respondent had honestly disclosed all relevant information, including raw materials and the manufacturing process, to the department. As a result, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the demand was indeed time-barred under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, as the show cause notice was issued after the one-year limitation period. The judgment dismissed the department's appeal on this issue, emphasizing the respondent's transparent disclosure and the absence of suppression or misrepresentation.In conclusion, the judgment resolved the issues of classification and time-barred demand in favor of the respondent, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. The classification of the tobacco pouches under Entry No. 24039910 was deemed appropriate based on the manufacturing process, and the demand was considered time-barred due to the respondent's full disclosure of information to the department. Both the department's appeal and the respondent's cross-objection were dismissed, affirming the decisions made at the lower levels.
TaxTMI 