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>Tribunal classifies Herbal Shikakai Powder as cosmetic, partially allows Revenue's appeal</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Versus Cuddalore Kalamandir Women Worker's Multi Purpose Co-op. Cottage Industrial Soc. Ltd.</h3> Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Versus Cuddalore Kalamandir Women Worker's Multi Purpose Co-op. Cottage Industrial Soc. Ltd. - TMI Issues: Classification of Herbal Shikakai Powder, Demand of duty, Limitation periodClassification of Herbal Shikakai Powder:The case involved the classification of Herbal Shikakai Powder manufactured by the assessee. The Revenue contended that the product should be classified under Chapter Heading 3305.99 as a preparation for use on hair, attracting 30% adv. The Superintendent of Central Excise issued show cause notices, leading to an adjudication order classifying the product under sub-heading 3305.99 and demanding duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the order, upholding the classification but partly dropping the duty demand on limitation grounds. The Tribunal referred to precedents and held that Herbal Shikakai Powder is classifiable as a cosmetic under sub-heading 3305.99, dismissing the appeal by the assessee.Demand of Duty:The Revenue filed an appeal against the dropping of a portion of the duty demand on limitation grounds. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the issue in detail, noting the demand was based on a circular and the limitation aspect. Citing legal precedents, the Commissioner ruled that the demand made before a certain date failed and that corrigendum increasing the demand was hit by limitation. The Tribunal upheld the demand for duty for six months prior to a specific date but agreed with the Commissioner that the demand increased by corrigendum was time-barred. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was partly allowed, with the assessee required to pay duty for the specified period.Limitation Period:The issue of limitation was crucial in the case, with the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal analyzing the timeline of demands and corrigendum. Legal principles were applied, including judgments on the validity of corrigendum to show cause notices and the impact of time limitations on such amendments. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's findings on the limitation aspect, ruling that the demand increased by corrigendum was not sustainable due to being barred by limitation. This aspect influenced the decision on the Revenue's appeal and the final outcome of the case.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the classification of Herbal Shikakai Powder, the demand of duty, and the limitation period concerning the duty demand. Legal precedents, circulars, and case laws played a significant role in determining the classification and the validity of the duty demand, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the assessee's appeal and the partial allowance of the Revenue's appeal based on the specified time frame for duty payment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
